CVS Wins $1 Billion Benefit Contract

On December 11, 2009, CVS Caremark Corp was the winning bidder for a contract worth almost $1 billion. This contract would provide pharmacy benefits to retired teachers strictly in Texas. The Teacher Retirement System of Texas (the people that are part of the contract) will begin to negotiate a two- year deal with CVS to start helping retired teachers. This contract is told to begin in September of 2010. It is said that CVS has dropped 13 percent in all stocks for the New York Stock Exchange. They have also lost around $4.8 billion in a 2010 contract because of the prices for the drugs. Luckily for CVS, winning the billion dollar contract has now rejuvenated the pharmacy business image, and has also shown that the pharmacy business is still alive and well. The contract is broken down into a two year commitment. In 2011, the contract is told to give $480 million, while $518 million is estimated worth for 2012.

I believe that this contract is one that will do the best for all retired teachers in Texas. Not only is this a good plan for anyone, but especially for those teachers that cannot afford health care. If one cant afford health care, how can they get the necessary items they need to stay healthy? CVS did lose a chunk of money in shares, but hopefully this plan will strengthen there stock market. Although this plan does not start until 2011, it is something that all should wait for, and all retired teachers should be able to benefit quite a bit from this plan.

Verizon wireless prepares for the iPhone

AT&T has been the only carrier of the iPhone, but this may change very soon. Verizon wireless firmly believes that it will be able to take on the task of carrying the iPhone. Over the past few years Verizon has consistently been increasing its coverage from all around the country. Furthermore, Verizon has created several different upgrades that enable the current network to handle extra traffic. Statements have been made that AT&T was not ready to deal with the heavy flow of traffic from the iPhone, thus Verizon wireless is willing to take some of it. Verizon has even started considering releasing phones very similar to the iPhone. However, AT&T disagrees with the statements of a faulty network and simply said they are working on fixing the minor problems. So far, Verizon has invested more money into creating a stronger network than AT&T as well as increasing the number of vehicles out in the country testing out the service. However, the iPhone has increased AT&T's data traffic by 5000% while Verizon's data traffic has also been rapidly increasing but as at a slower rate.

I think that that it would be beneficial to include the iPhone under Verizon wirelesses’ network. Verizon has a background of being a very strong and reliable network, and since AT&T has been having many troubles with heavy traffic, they should allow Verizon to share the troubles with them. Furthermore, while it may bring down AT&T's sales allowing Verizon to distribute iPhones would be more beneficial to the consumer which is most important.

Samsung Electronics Sues Sharp Over LCD-TVs as Fight Escalates

For the past two years Samsung Electronics and Sharp Corp. have been fighting for the position of prime leader in LCD technology. With many different patnets done by both companies, there have been many overlaps and as of now Samsung Electronics is suing Sharp Corp on 3 different patents. The basis of these patents are in the LCD screen portrayal of black to white proportions on imaging. From this lawsuit Samsung Electronic is hoping to gain some copensation in cash. As an analyst states, since the two companies are fighting for the LCD technology there will be many issues with copyright issues of different patents as time goes by. However, as of now Samsung Electronic is standing on top of LCD technologies while Sharp Corp is not even in the top 5. However, there have been statements that Samsung Electronic is willing to work around Sharp Corp's patents in order to work around getting banned. Though, this has not brought Samsung Electronics to back down on their lawsuit. Therefore, Samsung strongly believes that compensations need to be made. In my opinion, Samsung Electronics has right to sue Sharp Corp. Samsung Electronic spent their own time to make the LCD screen, but Sharp Corp portrayed their idea. This portrayed affected Samsung Electronic's financial. Samsung Electronic could have sold more items than they sold so far. So in my opinion compensations need to be made, and Sharp Corp should pay fine, portraying other companies' idea

eBay Vs. Craigslist Scandal

In mid-April of 2008, the online auction powerhouse eBay filed a lawsuit against Craigslist and two of its executives in a Delaware court for diluting eBay's investment in the company. Exactly four years ago, eBay was granted a little over a quarter of Craiglist's ownership (28 percent) to try and help the company gain elite status in the online auctioning industry. This proposal was suddenly questioned by Craigslist in July of 2008 when eBay launched another classified ad service named Kijiji which was publicly stated as a competitor to Craigslist.

"Yes, Craigslist is a competitor, but we feels there's room for two or more classified sites, and we plan to bring our expertise of bringing buyers and sellers together from eBay to Kijiji," stated Hani Durzi, an eBay director of corporate communications.

With this statement issued, Craigslist felt threatened and minimized eBay's economic interest by more than 10 percent taking away mostly all control they ever had in their share of Craigslist.

So what exactly is eBay suing Craigslist for? Not only does eBay believe Craigslist unfairly and unreasonably lowered their shares, they feel that Craigslist's chief executive adopted unspecified measures that put eBay and its investments to a disadvantage.

There is so much more going on between these two internet companies than any one person is aware of so people can only make judgments based off the concrete facts known so far. eBay is by far the most popular internet selling and buying company known nationwide and Craigslist is probably a close second. In my personal opinion, I think it was wrong for eBay to announce that it had created a new online auction company in Kijiji that was made primarily to compete with Craigslist. This statement makes Craigslist have to worry about the future of its company so it took action against eBay and the role eBay plays in its company. The legal issues are too complex to come to a complete conclusion but if I were to make a final decision, I would say that Craigslist has a right to dilute eBay's share within their company because of the establishment of Kijiji and eBay's comments about its new online auction company.

Google Sues Scammers

Google, the enormous and successful search engine, is suing Pacific WebWorks, a software development firm in Utah, for Federal Trademark Infringement because Pacific Web Works is posting scams on the internet using Google's logo.
According to Law.com, infringement is taking credit for patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics) that belong to someone else, the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental, the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damage fees, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits. Pacific WebWorks is using Google’s logo on their without permission in their advertisements, and are therefore infringing Google’s copyright.
Pacific Web Works is one of many companies that scams people by posting ads like "Use Google to make 1000’s of dollars" or "Easy Cash with Google: You Could be Making up to $978 a Day Working from Home!" People searching for these jobs foolishly click on the advertisement and these companies manage to rob them of a lot of money. They do this by having you pay small fee for shipping charges for a start-up kit, and then without the card holder’s knowledge, they charge a ridiculously large sum of money monthly.
Google is right for suing these companies because they should not be using Google's name especially if they are pulling a scam. This could be bad business for Google and people might not use their search engine anymore as a result. The real question, however, is why people are actually clicking on these ads believing that these job offers are legitimate. According to the Better Business Bureau, last year there were 3,539 complaints about work-at-home companies. Of these complaints, 382 were about Pacific WebWorks. Anybody with a brain could probably tell that these deals are too good to be true, and after clicking on it, why would they give their information to a company that they barley know anything about? For example, a victim of these scams was able to stop her credit card before the company billed her for the monthly fees. However she said, "I am frustrated and sick of all the scams." It sounds like this has happened to this woman multiple times so why would she do it again? People need to learn from their mistakes in order to avoid the same scam trick repeatedly.
Google is trying to prevent people from entering into these scams by warning people in their blog. Still, it will be difficult to get rid of all of them. They say that they can't control what will pop up. They also admit that they can't guarantee that people won't use their logo on these scams. Google warns its users to be skeptical of names like Google Adwork, Google ATM, Google Biz Kit, Google Cash, Earn Google Cash Kit, Google Fortune, Google Marketing Kit, Google Profits, The Home Business Kit for Google, Google StartUp Kit, and Google Works. These names are other scams like Pacific WebWorks.
In the end, the most important lesson is to be careful when on the internet. Don't go to sites you don't know about, and don't click on something you are skeptical of. If it's not a scam, then they are likely just trying to plant a virus. If you use caution when surfing the web, you can avoid these scams.

Subway President Sued for Fraud

On December 3rd, 2009, the Subway co-founder and president, Fred DeLuca, was sued by his previous partner of separate business ventures, Anthony V. Pugliese III for $5 billion. DeLuca is being sued for scheming his partner, Anthony, out of a multi-billion dollar business venture in a fraudulent manner. The two worked together on a 41,000 acre land development in Florida. The project valued at about $9 billion.Anthony and his attorneys argue that Fred DeLuca and his company took his investment out of the business venture through Fraud. They are officially suing for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, predatory lending, breach of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, quantum merit and unjust enrichment. Willie Gary, Anthony's attorney stated "Fred DeLuca stole our client's dream. He became a partner in a multi-billion dollar business deal with our client and made empty promises." Anthony had dreams of a green community called Destiny, but he believe DeLuca stole that from him and took him out of the investment.

They are suing on account of many violations. Breach of fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the best interest of another party and he violate this by taking Anthony out of this investment so he could make more money. Breach of contract simply means he defied the contract and partnership he had with Anthony. Fred also violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade practices act by misleading his service. He failed to give good faith in the project and to his partner and will now pay the consequences pending the result of the lawsuit.

I believe that Fred should be charged and convicting of the many fraudulent conducts that he has been accused of. The green village was Anothony's idea and they were partners going in on it, but because of DeLuca's unfair and illegal dealings, Anthony was unable to continue being a participant in the investment. In other words, he was kicked out of the project. I don't think this is right at all and greedy billionaire Fred DeLuca could end up losing a lot more money than he would have made from kicking Anthony out of the project.

Jay-Z sues Alabama Tea house

Under my umbrella ella ella eh eh... Remember those lines? These are the lines from Rhianna and Jay-Z's "Umbrella". Well in recent news singer Jay-Z along with artists Bon Jovi, Gwen Stefani, and Taylor Swift are suing Mobile, Alabama's Spot of Tea for playing their songs. The reason for the suit is because the teahouse has played multiple songs without paying royalties to Jay-Z or the other artists involved in the suit.

The Spot of Tea owners have been playing these songs without the use of a BMI or ASCAP license. These organizations monitor businesses that want to play the songs of various artists. Their purpose is to collect royalties and pay them to the artists.
To avoid a lawsuit such as this businesses must obtain a license and pay royalties. Businesses that really need to be careful are the ones that play music for the public to listen to. Places that are free from paying royalties are any school or church events.

What I think is that people that play the songs should pay the royalties. Because if no one ever payed them the artists would never make a living. Everyone would just go down to the nearest cafe or club and listen to the music there. So I think that Jay-Z has the right to sue a Spot of Tea. By doing this it is telling people that they can't just freeload, and besides good music attracts costumers. This then brings in more money for the business. I mean if you had spent hours and hours working on something to find that you wouldn't get paid for it? wouldn't that make you want to sue?

Can We Keep the Asian Carp Out of Lake Michigan?

What’s the problem?

The Asian carp is a big ugly fish often weighing more than 100 pounds and over four feet long. Two species of Asian carp -- the bighead and silver -- were imported from China by catfish farmers in South of the US in the 1970's to remove algae and other materials out of their ponds. During floods in the early 1990s, many of the catfish farm ponds overflowed, and the Asian carp were released into local waterways that ultimately made it in the Mississippi River basin.

Asian carp have since traveled north hundreds of miles. They have recently been found in the Illinois River, which connects the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan. Due to their large size and rapid rate of reproduction, the Asian carp could pose a significant threat to Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes ecosystem. Researchers fear that Asian carp would disrupt the food chain of native fish of the Great Lakes because they consume huge amounts of food.

To prevent the carp from entering the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies are working together to install a permanent electric barrier between the fish and Lake Michigan. In addition to the barrier, a poison was poured into the Sanitary and Ship Canal that connects the Illinois River and Lake Michigan to kill all the fish for 6 miles below the barrier to prevent the carp from getting through the barrier until the electricity could be turned on.

It’s hard to say whether the barrier will work. Some Bighead carp DNA was already detected recently on the lake side of the barrier, and some environmentalists warned it may already be too late to keep the carp out.

The State of Michigan is afraid that if the Asian carp get into Lake Michigan, it will destroy the 7 billion dollar recreational fishing and tourist industry. The Michigan Attorney General is planning to file a lawsuit in federal court, and maybe even directly in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Attorney General could claim the Asian carp is a public nuisance threatening recreational activities and commercial fishing throughout the Great Lakes, and that current efforts to contain the fish are inadequate. The lawsuit could try to force the State of Illinois to undertake increased monitoring of the carp in order to make sure that officials know where the fish are. They also may ask the court to seal the canal in order to allow a permanent separation of the Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes so that the fish never make it into the Great Lakes.

What are the consequences of closing the canal?

Shippers have said closing the canal leading to the lakes could be disastrous for them. Seventeen tons of coal, steel, chemicals, and other commodities are shipped through the canal every year, says Lynn Muench with the American Waterways Operators. "If you moved all those to rail cars, you'd have almost 300 thousand more rail cars coming through Chicago, Muench says. "If you moved everything by truck, you'd increase the truck traffic in Chicago by one-point-29 million more trucks.

What’s the right answer?

Closing the Canal permanently seems like a drastic action, especially given the other consequences to the economy. However, there does not seem to be any other solution for keeping the carp out of the Great Lakes. Also, I agree that it is important to keep the carp out of the Great Lakes because they were never meant to be there and would have a devastating consequence for the natural fish population of the Great Lakes. I favor a temporary closure of the canal and efforts to study whether there are ways to eliminate the carp population from the Mississippi River. Some have suggested that the carp could be harvested and shipped to China, where they are considered a delicacy.

Who Should Be Blamed When It Comes to Cell Phones and Car Crashes?

One of the main causes of automobile accidents is talking on the phone while driving. According to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, there are 236 million current cell phone users. These phone users cause the 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries, and 2,600 deaths each year found to be the effect of using a phone while driving.

The idea of suing a cell phone provider for something that happens because of the cell phone has had an effect on recent news. On September 3, 2008, a woman by the name of Linda Doyle was killed in Oklahoma City by Christopher Hill. Hill was talking on his cell phone while driving and claimed that he was distracted by the phone call which led him to run a red light at 45 miles an hour, causing him to hit Ms. Doyle’s car.

In October, the daughter of Ms. Doyle filed a lawsuit suing the companies who provided Hill with the phone including Sprint, Nextel, and Samsung. Ms. Doyle’s daughter claims that companies should have provided warnings to people not to talk on their cell phone while driving. Sprint/ Nextel, the company that provided Mr. Hill with his phone, “rejects the claims of negligence” and says that they provided safety warnings on packaging, user manuals, online, and in advertising, and therefore they should not be responsible for Mr. Hill’s actions dealing with the phone.

Russell Jackson, a lawyer who defends companies in product liability cases, said that generally consumers know it is risky to talk on a cell phone but do it anyway. This leads Jackson to believe that even with were more warnings, Mr. Hill’s actions would not have changed.

Mr. Hill ended up pleading guilty to negligent homicide but he does not blame the cell phone company for his actions. Though, Hill did mention that he was not aware of the warnings that the wireless companies did provide.

Clearly cell phones are related to accidents while driving. With drivers who are talking on a cell phone being four times more likely to get an accident, and these “cell phone using” drivers being less capable than drunk drivers with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08, it is clear that something has to be done.

The driver should be responsible for the crash not the cell phone, as the driver should have enough common sense to know that talking on a cell phone is a distraction. This means that the cell phone company should not be blamed for the crashes resulting in talking on cell phones.

Although the driver should be responsible for their actions and as driving while using a cell phone is considered a negligent action, there are other possible things that can be done to reduce the number of people affected by driving while talking on a phone. As Kenneth A. Bamberger, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, mentions, this case deals with the use of a product that is known to be a significant risk, and the main question is who should take control over minimizing this risk. Although it should not be the cell phone company’s fault when a crash does occur, there are still things that can be done and should be done by the company to prevent many of these crashes from happening. Although many people may not read the warnings that cell phone companies provide, there are the percentage that do, and therefore these warnings would save lives. Anything that can be done to help save lives should be done and even though it is not the cell phone companies to blame for these crashes, they should still take action.

Comcast-NBC Deal

Comcast and NBC viewers are starting to get anxious as the alleged deal between the two companies could go through any time soon. Comcast, with strong ambitions from their CEO Brian Roberts, is looking to buy control of NBC in what could be a $30 billion acquisition.

This deal would give Comcast 51% of the company, leaving GE's NBC with 49%. GE, who currently owns 80% of NBC, has to get permission from Paris-based Vivendi, who owns the remaining share of NBC. GE and Vivendi would have to work out a separate deal, possibly leaving GE with total control over NBC. Comcast seems to be very enthusiastic about the deal as it would give them 27 additional channels, and a tie into the movie industry. They are currently the number one cable and broadband company, and this deal would give them even more control in the cable, broadband, and movie industry. Brian Roberts sees this deal as a way for them to increase revenue and meet the demands of all cable viewers. Roberts says, "We are creating a new company with an absolute first-class set of cable channels. Cable is becoming a commodity, and there is a very large demand for it. If the government decides to put it in every home in the country, business will boom for all cable companies. Right now, 82% of Comcast's revenue comes from cable channels, and NBC's 5 main channels generate over $200 million in revenue. This is one of the main reasons why Comcast sees this deal as a way of possible success in the future. GE seems very interested in the deal although they would only own 49% percent of the company. It associates them with the leading cable and broadband company in the country, and could not only potentially boost revenue, but improve their reputation. GE has spoken before about selling NBC, and if this deal goes through they would likely sell off the remaining 49% of NBC to Comcast over the following 8 years.

I don't think the deal should go through because it would give Comcast too much power in the cable industry. The acquisition would give Comcast-NBC 20% of all U.S. airing hours and would generate an estimated annual revenue of $42 billion. The other major concerns amongst the public would be the increase in channel prices. Competition is very limited as it is, and other companies would be forced to raise there prices as well. If any other company wanted to provide NBC channels, Comcast would charge higher prices due to the strong demand for them. Cable prices are only going up from here on out, and this would increase them by even more. Right now people don't like paying for channels they don't use. If Comcast buys NBC, people will be getting other Comcast or NBC channels they don't want, and will be forced to pay extra for them. The question of whether or not this would create a monopoly has concerned both viewers and competitors. The FTC is doing all they can to determine if the deal is legitimate, and without their approval the deal will not go through.

6 flags declares bankruptcy

Many people claim six flags is very expensive. The fact is, they need the money. In June 2009, Six Flags Amusement Park declared they were $2.4 Billion in debt. They claim that for those who love to go to the amusement park there is no worry. You won't even be able to tell that they are bankrupt. The rides are still going to run and the lines will still be long.




At first, the amusement park company had an agreement with loaners but they could not reach their payment goal in time. This is why they had to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. But, bankruptcy isn't the only problem they face. They also owe stockholders $300 million. They are saying that the shares will be worth nothing because the company will be paying off other debts first. The company will be focused on getting out of debt to keep the company running and the shares will not be the number 1 priority.



Don't start getting upset because the company is doing everything to get the money back. They are trying to sell land they dont use to pay off some debt. Six flags is waiting for the court to approve a "pre-negotiation restruction plan". They claim it would get rid of $1.8 billion of the debt. They are also making plans for the future. They state they are just waiting for it to be over and have many plans to make it a better place and keep people entertained.



While they are bankrupt, they are scared the attendance will decline. The people will get impatient waiting in lines when the amusment park is bankrupt. I disagree with them completely. I believe that people will want to go more now because the park may close from bankruptcy. I think the only reason people will not want to go is because they don't have the money to spend. This might become a huge issue/ is a big issue for the company. With the recession, more people are finding cheaper ways to be entertained. Since the park is so expensive, less and less people will go. The economy needs to get better in order for the company to get better.


I have learned that the amusement park business is a downhill business. They have to pay so much for insurance and repairs. The tickets are already lots of money and if they raise the prices more people will stop attending. I think sooner or later this will happen again and again.

AT&T sues Verizon WIreless

AT&T filed a suit against Verizon Wireless accusing them of false advertising and deceptive trade practices. AT&T said that Verizon Wireless was copying their “there’s an app for that” ads by using a slogan that reads “there’s a map for that”. Also, Verizon Wireless showed U.S. maps with areas that their 3G network covers. Then, they showed maps of areas that Verizon Wireless covers compared to AT&T. On the map, Verizon Wireless seemed to cover much more than AT&T does. AT&T complained that those maps are simply misleading because there is still coverage in areas where the 3G network is not offered.

In my opinion, AT&T is just trying to look for a reason to sue Verizon Wireless. It might be because AT&T isn't making enough money or they want to make more. But in my opinion, this issue is not something everyone should get angry over, and it's just not that big of a deal.

Also, I always see commercials in which companies directly attack other companies through advertisements. I remember a few years ago, the advertisements would always involve the companies' products, then another "standard" or "normal" product. For example, Charmin used to compare their product to the regular quilted brand, not attacking any other companies.
Most other commercials used to be like this as well. But now, companies attack each other directly. For example, in the newer Charmin commercials, they started to compare their product to the Ultra Rippled Brand, directly attacking this company as lower than and not as well-developed as the Charmin brand.

This is basically what I think about this issue. I think that what Verizon Wireless is doing is unfair, but everyone's doing it nowadays so they shouldn't get sued for doing something that everyone does. If every company sued other companies that "copied" or damaged the image of their companies, then every company would be sued at least once. So I don't think that this lawsuit is something that AT&T should attempt to accomplish. I don't believe that Verizon is "copying" from or mistating anything about AT&T, and AT&T should just calm down a little bit.

Tiffany v. Tiphony

Can you tell the difference between these two rings? Well, the one on the left is real, and the one on the right is fake.

eBay is just a garage sale online. Do you think everything at a garage sale is what it looks like or says it is? Well on eBay, only 5% of the Tiffany jewelry is real.

Tiffany, who was not so ecstatic about this, filed a lawsuit against eBay saying that eBay had aided the infringement of its trademark by not doing enough to yank fake Tiffany jewelry off of its site.

Bruce Rich of Weil said, "Tiffany is trying to shift its own obligation to police theintegrity of its brand on to a third party because it doesn't want to spend the money necessary to combat counterfeiting. Another motive for Tiffany's suit against eBay is that, as a retailer, eBay is a competitor in the secondary marketplace."eBay a law of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision of the Inwood v. Ives case, which says a third party is liable if it "intentionally induces another to infringed a trademark or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement.

Legally though, eBay is not responsible for its hosted content, co-founder of Bromberg & Sunstein law firm, Bruce Sunstein explains,"It is not its role to ensure that the objects exchanged are genuine, unless platform managers are aware of or have been informed of fraud and know that the objects they list are counterfeit." Tiffany felt that eBay should monitor all of their hundred million listings which are always in circulation from 250 million registered users. However, eBay countered, "We believe that a brand owner is the only one that can truly and effectively police its own brand."

But why should they have to police their site? People have to realize that if something that is a major designer product is going for a starting bid for .99 that there's something wrong with it. Most likely it's fake, or someone dropped it in the toilet. You get what you pay for.

The Verdict:

"Significantly, Tiffany has not alleged, nor does the evidence support a conclusion, that all of the Tiffany merchandise sold through eBay is counterfeit. . . . [T]he doctrine of contributory trademark infringement should not be used to require defendants to refuse to provide a product or service to those who merely might infringe the trademark. . . . Were Tiffany to prevail on its argument that generalized statements of infringement were sufficient to impute knowledge to eBay of any and all infringing acts, Tiffany’s rights in its mark would dramatically expand, potentially stifling legitimate sales of Tiffany goods on eBay. . . ."

Twittering in Sports

Twittering seems to be the new fad in professional athletes these days. Twitter is a micro-blogging tool or social network that asks the question "what are you doing?" Athletes from all different sports are joining in on the new fad. These athletes use twitter to make fans and other athletes aware of what they're doing and maybe their thoughts at that moment. Famous athletes such as Shaquille O'Neil, Danica Patrick, Chad Ochocinco, and many more participate in this new phenomena.

This new fad has also caused a lot of trouble for athletes, and has even forced organizations to have to put regulations on what they can "tweet" about. Athletes often get in trouble for making bad comments about fans, other players, organizations, and much more. NFL Linebacker for the Washington Redskins, Robert Henson got in some trouble for making comments on how the fans were "dim wits." Running back, Larry Johnson, is currently is some trouble for allegedly making a gay slur on his twitter account. The NBA, NFL, and even individual organizations are coming up with policies regarding these social networks. This YouTube video (which can't be embedded because the authors wouldn't allow it) does a good job explaining the background of Athletes and Twitter. I really think that twitter, although I have never used it, is a cool thing for fans to get to know their idols and favorite professional athletes. Twitter gives regular old people a chance to see that professional athletes are regular people,too and this social network gives fans a window into some of their everyday lives. I think that teams, organizations, and leagues making policies against the use of Twitter violates our freedom of speech. I don't think players should have the right to say slanderous things on Twitter about other players, coaches or organizations, but I do think they should be able to talk about their own personal lives within reason.

MLB's St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa, sued Twitter over the summer for an fake Twitter page under his name. Apparently, this fake page brought up a drunk driving incident of his, as well as two dead Cardinal pitchers which he claims brought him emotional distress and hurt his reputation. Stanford Law professor Mark Lemley says “He’s basically repackaged a defamation suit to make it look like a trademark suit.” He says this because you cannot sue these social networking sites for defamation because of motions passed. There were rumors that Twitter made a settlement with La Russa, but a month later, it was found that La Russa dropped the suit.

I agree that Twitter can't be held responsible for imposter's and what people say on their networking site. They have policies for people to abide by. I can understand why La Russa might have been upset over this incident, but there isn't much Twitter could do to fix this besides terminate the fake page, which was done.

Overall, I think that Twitter is a good way for fans to get in touch with, and have a window into the everyday life of their favorite sports stars. Do organizations have the right to regulate their Twittering? I believe they do to some extent, but athletes should still be able to express themselves like everyone else does.

Nokia sues Apple for patent infingement

Nokia, the world's leading cell phone supplier and a leading handset provider, has recently filed a law suit against Apple for patent infringement. Nokia has been taking hits on its sales since the release of the iPhone the most popular smart-phone on the market. The Finland based handset giant has said that so far negotiations with apple have not been very successful. Nokia states that the charges of patent infringement stem from the fact that Nokia spent around 40-60 billion on research and development for its phones and that Apple has forgone this research. "By refusing to agree to appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation," said Ilkka Rahnasto, Nokia's vice president for legal and intellectual property at Nokia.

So what Nokia is saying is that Apple has stolen their ideas and patents and used them in their IPhone since release. Nokia though isn't asking for injunction which would halt the shipment and sale of the iPhone. Instead Nokia asks for an appropriate compensation for the past and future uses of their technology.

In the past couple years Apple has increased their share of smart phones sold from 3% to 13% while Nokia has dropped from 47% to 45%.

To me It seems odd that Nokia has taken this long to sue apple for patent infringement when the iPhone has been out for some time now. It feels like now that they realize that Apple is a threat they are trying to compete with them any way they can. But, it doesn't matter at all why it has taken Nokia so long to file a law suit the fact is if Apple has used technology patented by Nokia then Apple could be in truoble. What do you think?

Photography Laws

I'm a third year photography student in GBN, but I always liked photography, even before I started taking photo classes. I love it so much that I'm sure that at some point in my life I will study it in college. But after reading about the issues that other photographers have faced....I must say that I'm nervous. Of course, the photographer mentioned in the link lives in the UK, but it can easily happen here, in the USA, as well. I have been downtown to take photographs and luckily I was never arrested or been stopped from taking a picture. Yes, there have been some...well, less than warm looks from random passer-by's that happen to be in my shot, but I was never told to stop taking pictures by a police officer.
Photography is an important aspect of today's society. Photographers should be allowed to do their job freely, without any unnecessary, unfair limitations.

There are a few laws that a photographer should be aware of:

1. The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks and parks. So basically, you can go to downtown Chicago and take pictures there without any worries.

2.Anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they are in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes. This was decided in the Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia case in 2005. DiCorcia was taking pictures in Time Square with an elaborate system of strobe lights, he was taking pictures from 20 feet away, collecting images of passers-by (including Nussenzweig) without their knowledge. He then exhibited these photographs and published them in a book. Nussenzweig felt that his privacy was violated, so he filed a lawsuit. The court ruled that DiCorcia's use of the picture was for artistic expression, and not commercial. So it was decided that a photographer could display, publish, and sell (at least in limited editions) street photography without the consent of the subjects of these photos.

3. You are allowed to take pictures of criminal activities,law enforcement officers, and accidents or fires. But you need to know that police officers have the right to keep you away from areas where you may disturb their activities or endanger their safety in some way. For example, if you are taking pictures of a car accident, you probably won't be allowed to get really up close to the scene, simply because you will probably interfere with the police officers work.

4. Private parties have no right to confiscate your film without a court order. If you are taking pictures of a store and the owner of that store comes up to you and asks you to give them your film, this can constitute as a criminal offense, such as theft, or coercion. It can also constitute a civil tort, such as conversion.

(Photo by Alex Turner)

Patent Lawsuits are making big money for Tivo

Tivo, which is a company that has over 146 patents on various DVR specialties, has been reaping in huge sums of money from lawsuits dealing with these patents. The most recent case was against Dish Network and won them over $200 million according to Business Week. Tivo has been winning many cases because of its trademark patents such as the "time warp" patent that allows the box to play one show while recording another. This patent has been a hot topic for Tivo to sue over because it is essential that most DVR's have this feature for them to work properly. Earlier Tivo won another huge lawsuit against EchoStar in 2006. The lawsuit was over whether EchoStar abused the patent that Tivo has allowing users rewind or fast forward capabilities during a love video. The court ruled in favor of Tivo and they received $87 million in damages according to Fox News. Tivo has made hug sums of money so far from these lawsuits and I doubt they will stop here.


I believe that Tivo shouldn't be abusing their patents to sue other companies. Tivo has been losing money and recently Tivo reported a $2.9 million loss for the second quarter on $57.4 million in revenues. Tivo has been losing profits from not inventing any new technology and from fierce competition from other local cable companies and other big companies such as Dish Network. Their once inventive ideas are now being used in different ways and Tivo is struggling to keep their profits. Their major source of income is from their patent lawsuits, which they are abusing in my opinion. Their patents are for very vague features that are required for other companies to make DVR like devices. Tivo is just trying to make it so other companies can't make devices like this to eliminate the competition they have, which is greatly losing them money. The lawsuits are also making the company's stock prices soar, which can be seen here. I believe this gives stock buyer a misrepresentation of how Tivo is generating income because if they didn't win these lawsuits they would be performing very poorly as a corporation. Tivo is dieing out due to the competition and their lack of new ideas and the only thing holding them alive is their patent lawsuits.

Social Networking Cites Used For Background Checks

Social networking sites are some of the most popular online sites. Besides more and more high school and college students using these websites, many employers are beginning to use Facebook and MySpace as forms of checking backgrounds of potential employees. These networking sites can be used to find information about employees, or potential employees, which may affect hiring, firing, promotion, or other business related activities.

According to a survey done by the Ponemon Institute, 35 percent of hiring managers use the internet when performing background checks on job candidates, 23 percent on social networking sites. About one-third of these web searches lead to rejections. There was another survey done in the United Kingdom that polled over 950 business managers. This survey showed that almost a third of these people check social networking sites when looking for potential clients as well as to get information on existing employees. Out of those managers, about a quarter of them say what they have found has actually affected whether or not they decide to hire somebody. Drunken photos and rude comments that are posted by a person are the biggest causes for why a person may not be hired based on the social networking sites. Out of the people who previously said they did not use social networking sites as means for background checks, almost half of them said they would probably check their employees and potential employees this way in the future.

There was a case in which a woman’s Facebook page affected her as a job candidate. A man by the name of Van Allen, part of a company that helps find employees came for hospitals and clinics was planning on hiring a well-qualified, young, female psychiatrist. Though, her Facebook page made Allen think again about his decision to hire her. On this page, there were many pictures of her taking off her shirt at parties. Later, when Van Allen called her in order to get an explanation, it resulted in her not getting the job. This shows how job candidates who use networking sites have to be aware that what they post could affect their job. The images shown on Facebook may show a side of him/her that that person did not want his/her boss or coworkers to see, and therefore he/she should be careful with what he/she posts online.

Although many employers may seem too old to be considered part of the Facebook Generation, and are therefore not expected to be aware of what their employees post about them on the web, employers are increasingly using social networking sites when it comes to hiring. Many big corporations were previously checking job applicant’s background information. Though, these social networking sites allow smaller businesses to check their potential employees as well. The biggest users of the social networking sites are financial services firms and health care providers as a high level of honesty is needed in these jobs. The main target of the web research and online background checks is new college students since they use they use the social networking sites more than any other age group.

The main concern with looking online for information that may not come up in a job interview is the ethical side of it. There is little that can be done to prevent hiring managers from discriminating against the information on these websites. This may cause a problem as information such as religion that is posted on Facebook may be linked to discrimination in businesses. But, Facebook and other social networking sites have privacy policies that protect the sites. The policies deny responsibility by stating that posting on the site allows the networking site to access or release the user’s content for a purpose. When a company is planning on defending a discrimination claim, social networking sites may be used for evidence including a person’s friends, opinions, and views.

A business using social networking sites to find out more information on employees and potential employees is fair. Although many people may not be happy with the information that is found about them, that person should be aware of everything that is posted online about him/her. If there are inappropriate pictures of that person, he/she must have been somewhere in order for these pictures to be taken, and therefore that person should have prevented those pictures from going online if they did not want them to be seen. There are also privacy policies that protect the social networking sites. Although many people do not read them, these policies explain to people signing up for the sites that information about them may be used. Even though people may not like what is found out about them by means of social networking sites, it is fair if the sites are used for background checks involved with hiring, firing, and promotions in businesses.

La-Z-Boying While Intoxicated

DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI(driving while intoxicated) are two of the most

commonly seen in

fract

ions by society. In most cases, DUI charges are pressed when a driver is behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated but 62-year-old Dennis Leroy Anderson went to extremes and pimped out

his favorite La-Z-Boy recliner and decided to take it for a joy-ride. In doing so, Anderson installed a lawnmower engine, wheels, headlights, a small steering wheel, a stereo, and cup-holders into his new source of transportation to see how his obscure invention matched up with

the rest.

It was all fun and games until eight or nine beers into the night. The 62-year-old Anderson chose to drive his motorized recliner to a local bar in Proctor, Minnesota where he backed into a parked vehicle at the nights conclusion and was arrested by local police for driving a La-Z-Boy while intoxi

cated. When police arrived at the scene in August 2008, they discovered Anderson's blood alcohol level to be at 0.29, exceeding the legal limit of .08 by three times. Anderson was not injured during the crash and told local officials that he was driving just fine until a woman jumped on the chair and knocked it off course. Keyboard Lounge own

er Roger Raymond denies serving Anderson and pleads that Anderson did not enter the Proctor bar all night.

Earlier this week, Dennis Leroy Anderson pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle while intoxicated. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and two years of probation. The worst part of the deal for Anderson is that his invention was forfeited to police and auctioned off

along with other confiscated items.

The issue here: does La-Z-Boy have a right to sue Anderson. Anderson took a mainstream product and turned into a creation of his own. In doing this, Anderson wrongly brings attention upon the La-Z-Boy company and hurts the reputation of La-Z-Boy and their products of the future.

How Private Are Hotel Rooms?

Hotel rooms might not be as private as we all think they are, and Erin Andrews learned the hard way. Andrews is a very successful ESPN reporter who was voted Playboy's 2009 sexiest sportscaster.

On September 4th 2009, Andrews was staying at the Nashville Marriott. A 47 year old insurance salesman named Michael David Barrett requested a room next to Ms. Andrews. The Mariott granted his request, setting Andrews up for a life changing experience. The two rooms were right next to each other at the end of the hall. They were in an alcove, meaning they were just about free to do whatever they wanted. According to sources, Andrew's peephole had been sawed off enough where a camera could film through it. That night, Barrett allegedly took videos as well as pictures of Andrews naked and in a towel. These pictures were then leaked on the internet. Barrett tried to sell the videos to a local celebrity website TMZ.com. Tmz refused, and there was evidence connecting the email used to send the pictures with Barrett's cell phone. There isn't any clear evidence as to why Barrett was so interested in Andrews, but it appeared as if this incident wasn't his only intended one. The Ramada Conference Center, a hotel in Milwaukee where Andrews was scheduled to stay at, had a very similarly modified peephole in Andrew's room. Barrett had also called 14 hotels where Andrews planned to stay in the future to reserve a room next to her. Federal prosecutors see him as a threat to other women having also found other naked pictures on the same email used to send the Andrew's videos around. Neither Barrett nor his lawyer will talk much about the incident, but Barrett's lawyer and old friend Rick Beuke stated that Barrett is, "as regular a guy as you'll ever meet- a great friend."

When news leaked that Barrett was been the person behind the stalking, Andrew's immediately pressed charges. Barrett was released on $4500 bond, and is required to wear an ankle monitoring bracelet. He is due at court on October 23rd for interstate stalking. These charges can face a major penalty of $250,000 and up to 5 years in jail. As of now, Barrett has lost his job as an insurance salesman and is waiting for his court hearing. There is no leaniance for interstate stalking, and Barrett is bound to face to consequences. Follow up on this case on October 23rd for the hearing.

Music Industry make $$$ from file sharing

Sometimes stealing music or sharing files can be more expensive then just buying it.

In 2007, the federal jury awarded $220,000 to six firms from one woman sharing music. Jammie Thomas had to pay $9,250 per song. There were 24 songs that she was being sued for. The complaint stated she shared 1,702 songs that were copyrighted. Jammie downloaded the songs and then shared the files through a Kazaa account. Her lawyer claims "the companies never proved Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

About Jammie Thomas's case

A 12 year old girl, Brianna LaHara got sued for downloading tons of songs. She believed it was alright since her mother paid a service fee of $29.99. This family also used the website Kazaa. 261 people got sued by giant music companies in federal courts. All the people who stole, including Brianna, may have to pay up to $150,000 per song. The family thinks it is unfair. "It's not like we were doing anything illegal, this is a 12-year -old girl". Explains Brianna's mother.

The fact is, big music labels know that streaming, downloading music will be free sooner or later. But, they do not want that to happen because that is how they make a ton of their money. So far, sales have declined 20% a year. Apple pays money to the labels for downloads and so does MySpace, but once people stop buying from them, they will stop paying the labels. The music industries are also selling less CD's once people learned about getting music online for free.

It is not only that people download music for free. Some people listen to the music for free and then pick which songs they want to buy. This way they do not have to buy the whole album they just spend $.99 per song. Even if the music company is not out 100% they are still out around 50% of the money.

Music labels do not expect much to change very quickly, but they expect things to change in the next decade. They know money will keep decreasing until they get none at all. They believe that in many years everyone will get music for free.

The major problem is, is that artists still want to be paid for recording music. artist make money buy selling their work, songs. When nobody buys their music, how will they get their money?

Stealing music instead of buying it saves a ton. But, is it worth it when the artist and businesses do not have money to make more music? Sharing files online is just like walking into a store and taking/stealing a CD.

ACORN's Embezzlement Scandal

ACORN was once known as a wonderful orginization that helped in achieving affordable housing, better schools, fair housing, better tax fees, health care, immagratoin, and many other situations that many Americans are concerned about.However, their once good reputation has since been tarnished. Some people might have seen the viral video regarding ACORN giving tips to people posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to lie about the women's proffesion in order to get financial help, as well as telling them how to illegally get girls into the country to use as prostitutes. This clearly and severely damaged the reputation of ACORN but the bigger story now is that of embezzlement. Louisiana's Attorney General Buddy Caldwell recently said he has amped up his investigation over the embezzlement of $5 million a decade ago.

ACORN has admitted to that embezzlement did in fact occur, but says it was only $948,607. The dispute is exactly that, how much money was embezzled? The prosecuters filed a subpoena in which the $5 million figure was noted and it was seeking information regarding bookkeeping, accounting, and other financial management services to ACORN.

ACORN believes that Caldwell has based his figure on something ACORN Chief Executive Officer Bertha Lewis made.

ACORN says her remark was that the case could possibly cost them $5 million, meaning paying for lawyers, investigators and what not. Another concern of the people is that when Barack Obama was asked about this situation he just brushed it away and gave the impression it was an unimportant situation.

ACORN's new reputation along with the fact they have helped with the voting registration of countless underprivileged people, and the fact that Obama doesn't seem to care shouts out scandal to some people. However, with all thats going on in the world one couldn't expect the president to try to deal with a situation regarding $5 million dollars which seems to be the maximum. On the other hand, this situation as well as the previous violation from ACORN causes one to think that their money isn't being spent for a good cause.

Teresa Lehman vs. Kohl's PDA Violation

Teresa Lehman was known to be in the top 10 candidates for a promotion at Kohl's Department Store where she worked as an assistant manager for 10 years. She did not get the promotion, however, because she was pregnant. Teresa's bosses repeatedly asked her questions such as, "Did you get your tubes tied," "I thought you couldn't have any more kids," "You're not going to have any more kids again, are you?" and more.

It is also known that Teresa had plenty of opportunities to be given higher positions in the company and were given to less-qualified employees that were either male or had convinced their bosses that there would be no chance of pregnancies in the future. This happened even though her bosses had told Teresa on more than one occasion that she was clearly manager material.

This is completely in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which prevents employers from discriminating against pregnancies, being a parent, etc. Thankfully the courts agreed with Lehman and Kohl's had to pay $2.1 million.

I think more of these types of discriminations happen in companies and workplaces than people are aware of. Is there any sensible reason for an employer to discriminate against women this way? I say absolutely not! If employers were allowed to do these types of things, it would be making women chose between working or having a family and this is not fair. Women's rights would basically be non-existent and the entire work force would be dominated by males. The whole point of "bring your daughter to work day" is to show young girls that women can do the same jobs as men can and have all the same opportunities. The manager at Kohl's is sending the message that this is not the case. Why should women lose the rights the women before us have worked so hard to earn? This is unfair and must stop immediately.

Cap and Trade Enviromental Legislature.

The 1,200 page Cap and Trade bill, was passed on June 26, 2009 and hasn't stopped causing controversy since. However, before I discuss the controversy and the arguments of both sides we need to understand, what, exactly, is Cap and Trade? The purpose of the bill is to steadily reduce economic pollution in a cost effective way. Sounds like a good idea so far, so lets break it down. The cap part of the cap and trade is a limit on the amount of green house gasses a large scale emitter or company can emit. The business must have a permit for every ton of pollutants it emits. Over time the limits, or caps, these permits set become stricter and stricter. Reducing pollutants until the ultimate level is met. Only certain number of permits will be issued. Similar systems have worked in the past, the Clean Air Act of 1990 is a good example, it lowered sulfur emissions that cause acid rain and met its goal for a lower cost then anyone predicted.

Now for the trade half of the bill. Quite simply any company who emits less then their permits allow them can sell the extra permits to less efficient companies. Ideally this creates a system that guarantees an overall reduction while rewarding the more efficient companies and meeting the cap at the lowest possible cost. The government profits from this by auctioning off these permits to create a large and reliable revenue stream.

Your probably wondering, if the system is that good then why is it so controversial? Well The Barr Code said it better then I could have so let me try and summarize. Basically the controversy is based on several things.

1. The polluters can go over the permits limit if they buy two billion carbon offsets. These offsets can be purchased from within America, or other places in the world.

2. Utility companies would be forced to purchase more and more of their energy from renewable resources. They may do this by forcing their customers, families and companies alike, to reduce their energy usage by changing building codes in order to use less energy, change lighting systems employed in homes and outdoor areas, and buy more expensive “energy-efficient” appliances.

3. The system failed in Europe.

4. The cost is expected to be in the Trillions of dollars.

That's barely scratching the surface but I believe you get the idea. If regulated properly and generally accepted and adhered to the Cap and Trade system would be an environmental and economical god-send. Unfortunately things this big rarely work in an ideal manner, especially when politics get involved.