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.

LG Electronics Sues Whirlpool

There are many types of refrigerator out in the U.S appliance stores. As we see, everyrefrigerator looks the same. Due to technicians using similar systems to manufacture a refrigerator, every companies’ refrigerator looks similar.

On Oct. 7, LG filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Whirlpool in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. As stated by a company spokes person, the lawsuit was a file claimed against LG's "ice-makingsystem in a fresh food compartment" patent.

The judge, that resides in the U.S. International Trade Commission, ultimately denied the final claim made by Whirlpool Corp on the LG Electronics patent. As stated by another blogger, In Soo Nam, "the ruling stated that LG refrigerators were "not covered by less than one of Whirlpool's patents". Of Whirlpool's original five claims against LG, Whirlpool only claimed one of the five, withdrawing the other four. From this we can determine that LG is a true leader of appliances for American consumers, yet they still promote fair competition with other industries. After the lawsuit Whirlpool filed against LG, LG refuted and filed a lawsuit of their own. This case is scheduled for March in 2010 and not only is LG seeking damages but they are also seeking injunctions against several Whirlpool products.

Everyone knows that it's wrong to copy someone else's work and take credit for it. This blog clearly states that the whirlpool Corp’s copied LG electronics Inc.'s work. Therefore, I believe LG electronics Inc. has full rights to sue Whirlpool Corps. Due to Whirlpool Corp’s actions the company's credibility has significantly dropped and other companies do not want to negotiate with this company. As a result, they will eventually go bankrupt and won’t be able to manufacture any products.

Lawsuit Against Ford Motor Company

As the speeding car fed down the highway, 22-year veteran George Brentar of the Euclid police force died on Wednesday evening when his car crashed in a pole and caught on fire on an etrance ramp to Interstate 90. The road was very slippery at the time, so investigators were assuming that the crash was from the slippery road. Investigators are also stating that Brentar lost control of his car and skidded off the road.

The Ford Crown Victoria Lawsuit was flied 2 year later on October 6 in Cuyahoga County Court in Ohio by Brad Lakin and Charles Chapman of LakinChapmen, LLC. The lawsuit states that Ford is being held responsibly for putting the gas tank in the rear crush zone of the police car. It also says that Ford is being held negligent in failing to place the CVPI with an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system.

The ESC is used to allow systems to automatically brake and to control the steering wheels under all of the driving conditions such as rain, sleet, snow, and the occational hail. Back in the late 1900's, it was used to prevent the wheel from locking up and the car from skidding.

Personally, i think that Ford is, as a matter of fact, in fault here because Lakin said that there has been over 50 crashes containing the CVPI . But also, in my opinion, the Police department should have looked into Ford's cars instead of just "assuming" that they were police work material. If there were this many crashes, Ford should have known to be more careful on how they built there cars. But in lack of negligence, Ford had no intentions to put the ESC or the CVPI in any cars, escpecially in the police cars. No fire and no burns would have happened if Ford would have not located the CVPI in the rear crush zone.Documentations were filed against Ford after these accomidations occured.

An agreement was signed by Ford stating that Ford would make the standarized ESC's by the end of 2009. Currently, Ford has approximately 4 million automobiles aroudn the world with the standarized ESC inside them.

To accomidate the crash, Lakin and Chapman won the case with $43 million dollar verdict against ford in 2005 for the same cause, only it was with an elderly coupe whose Lincoln Town Car bursted into flames after being rear ended in the back.

Chicago Cubs Sold to Ricketts Family

On opening day of the 2007 baseball season, Sam Zell, owner of the Tribune co. and Chicago Cubs, announced that the Chicago Cubs were for sale and would be sold to the highest bidder. There were multiple bidders including the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team , Marc Cuban.


The process to sell the team was very long and therefore it took a while for Zell to find a potential buyer. Zell had the list narrowed down from ten buyers down to three buyers by July 2008. The three bidders were Owner of the Dallas Mavericks Marc Cuban, Sports Properties Acquisition Corp., and The Ricketts family. All bids were expected to exceed the amount of 1 billion dollars. However when the economy starting dropping, the price of the team was expected to drop as well. Late in Janurary Zell finally picked the buyer of the team. He picked billionaire Tom Ricketts, a die hard Cubs fan and a member of the family who founded TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. In addition to that he is the chief executive of In Capital LLC. Although, it would have made the most sense to chose Cuban who had the most money, but that didn't work out becuase Cuban was later indicted. Instead in the end Zell made the right choice by choosing owners who had their heart and soul invested in this team. That is the Ricketts family becuase they are so dedictaed to the cubs and really want them to win a world series. I feel that these owners finally have the passion for this team to finally win a world championship.

After the Ricketts were selected there was even more to do. In order for the team to be sold there had to be a two thirds vote of all major league baseball owners approving the sale. On October 6th the vote was unanimous in favor of the team being sold to the Ricketts family. Now the only thing standing between Ricketts and the Cubs are the details. The team is projected to sell for 900 million dollars. A big improvement compared to the twenty one million dollars that the Tribune Co. bought the team for in 1981. In addition to the buying the Cubs, the deal includes Wrigley field and twenty five percent interest in the Comcast Sports Network, with Zell retaining five percent of the Cubs for tax purposes.

This is a good turn around for the Cubs. The Ricketts family's networth is approximatley 2.1 billion dollars. However the Cubs have a ridicoulus 134 million dollars locked up in players salaries. Even though these players don't deserve it. This gives the Ricketts little chance to show what they can do. It forces them to spend more money on their over paid major league players and less on their farm system where the money is much needed. Also, because of the poor condition of Wrigley Field, the Ricketts family is obligated to spend even more money maintaining the stadium. In other words, I don't think fans will not see immediate improvements as a result of the team's new owners, but in a few years they will hopefully see many changes that lead to a World Series title.

David Letterman's Scandal

Everyone has heard about a time when a two people who worked with eachother have had a sexual relationship. This is a very common thing that is heard about throughout the world and very normal. But is it always heard about with a famous person like David Letterman? David Letterman is a very well known comedian. He is famous throughout the world. Letterman made a mistake by cheating on his wife and having sexual relations with someone who worked on the set of his T.V. show. Just because he is so famous, does that mean it's okay to gossip about his whole life? Just because he is caught in a celebrity scandal does not mean that every move he makes should be watched. "I have sex with women who work for me on the show" Letterman admitted to his audience one night.

If matters couldn't get worse for Letterman, his case keeps getting more embarrassing. A man named Robert Joel Halderman got involved by blackmailing Letterman. The man gave Letterman a one-page screenplay treatment depicting the talk- show host as a great success whose "world is about to collapse around him." Halderman also provided photographs to go along with this screenplay. This is absolutely disgusting to me. In no way does Letterman's situation have anything to do with anyone else. Letterman wrote the man a fake $2 million check to keep him from speaking out. When the man knew it was fake he gave Letterman's limo driver a one-page draft of the screenplay and included his whole love life. It is disturbing that this man spent so much time investigating his love life and making it all his business.

If the man thinks this is such sexual harassment that Letterman committed he should check again. It is not sexual harassment if the girl was happy and in a relationship with Lettermen. Letterman may have slept around with some of the woman but most of them had strings attached. They actually had realtionships. None of the woman were tricked into having sex with him or lead to believe there relationship was something when it wasnt. I do not agree with her being under age or the fact that he cheated on his wife, but i don't think it is any ones business but Letterman's. Sexual harassment has to be viewed again and closely looked at. Under the definitions of sexual harassment, it says"the harasser's conduct must be unwelcome." Letterman could have been convicted due to the under age woman. However, Letterman's neighbors told the press they saw the Letterman take the woman out on dates and "the woman seemed very happy" according to Law.com. Another thing said of sexual harassment is, "Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim." That means that the victim is injured. None of these woman were injured or pushed into having intercourse with him. Sexual harassment isn't a funny thing. It is sick and cruel. What makes it even crueler is being accused of committing it, when you never did, especially when you are on national television and the amount of viewers you have will decrease.

Cases of sexual harassment that have happened in the past are way worse than this. Those ones should be payed close attention to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SriJ3WOZaXU

Halderman "plead not guilty, and he stands by that plea," Mr Shargel, Halderman's lawyer, said after the arraignment in a telephone interview. There are two sides to every story and everyone knows that. However, there is no need for everyone to be in someone's business and start to blackmail. Letterman has enough in his life going on at the moment rather it was his fault or not. He has made a huge mistake and will suffer on his own without someone black mailing him about it. Jay Leno's T.V. show, "The Tonight Show," has gone up 20% due to people not watching Letterman as much.

Although this was a terrible thing that happened, and shouldn't have happened, it got way blown out of proportion and it was his business only. Robert Halderman should have never gotten involved. Sexual harassment violates the Title VII of the Civils Rights Act of 1964. It is not something that should be joked about or taken as an oppertunity to get money from a black mail.

At this point, Letterman is trying to make amends with his wife. He feels terrible for everything that has happened and is trying to apologize to everyone affected. "I want to apologize to all of my staff and wife for my stupid behavoir" Letterman said.

Michael Crabtree finally signed with 49'ers!

On October 7, 2009, 49'ers first round draft pick, Michael Crabtree, signed with the team after a six month hold out. It is reported that the 49'ers and Crabtree agreed to a six year, 32 million dollar contract. But it gets better. The 49'ers are willing to bump that six year 32 million dollar deal, to a five year 40 million dollars if Crabtree can acheive certain tasks. A certain source tells ESPN that if Crabtree can make it to the Pro Bowl in one of his first four years, and play 80 percent of the offensive snaps, of a season where the 49'ers make it to the playoffs, the 49'ers are willing to drop the six year deal to a five year deal. Another way that the 49'ers could lower his contract years is if he goes to the Pro Bowl in one of first four years, and goes to the Pro Bowl again in his fifth year. Overall, Crabtree is guaranteed 17 million dollars from his 32 million dollar contract, but is looking to make 19 million dollars over three years, and 23 million dollars over four years. In my opinion, I believe it was worth waiting this long to get business done. Most people criticized Crabtree, for his greediness and stupidness to wait so long to get a contract, but I believe it was smart for him to do this. One: he got what he wanted as far as money in his contract. Two: this contract will make Crabtree work harder so he can gain respect from his teammates, and also prove himself that he is worth the money. Lastly, his working hard could possibly earn him more money if he makes it to the Pro Bowl. On the other hand, this is risky business, seeing that not all college players live up to their hype in the NFL. But in this case, I believe he will do really well in the NFL, and not be one of those "only good in college" players. In the end, I think he is worth the money, and he will prove to everyone that he is worth the money this season.

How Family Photos Ruined a Family's Reputation

I’m sure almost everyone who is reading this has a picture of themselves in the bathtub when they were very young. The Demarees did the same thing, taking cute pictures of their kids with their arms around each other in the bathtub. Soon after, the family took their pictures to Wal-Mart to be developed and printed, just like we all have done many times. Without telling the family, a Wal-mart photo devoloper contacted the police to investigate if the photos in the bathtub contained child pornography. That set in motion a chain of events that is hard to believe. According to ABC News, the children were taken away from their parents for more than a month, Lisa Demaree was suspended from her job as a teacher for a year, and the Demarees have had to incur more than $75,000 in legal fees to defend themselves. The Demarees were found to have done nothing wrong; they were cleared of all charges and the pictures were found not to contain any pornography at all.

While I am as concerned as anyone else about the dangers of child pornography, Wal-Mart did not handle this the right way, ruining the lives of innocent people who did nothing wrong.

Wal-Mart should not have contacted the police in the first place. The pictures were obviously typical of those that parents take of their children everyday. There was nothing in the pictures that was even remotely pornographic. Wal-Mart also did not have a policy that warned their customers about the sorts of pictures they would find unacceptable; nor did they warn the parents they might be contacting the police.

People have a right to privacy. When people bring their pictures in to be developed, they have a right to expect that those pictures will be kept confidential and will not be screened by store employees who have no business looking at them. By needlessly reporting this to the authorities, Wal-Mart created a nightmare for this family.

The Demarees say that they have lost a year of their children’s lives, losing memories they will never be able to recover. They are scared about any photos they might take in the future. The people at Wal-Mart who decided that the photos were inappropriate were unqualified and should be fired. They had no criteria for making the decision. At a minimum, Wal-Mart should have had a clear policy that was communicated to their customers warning them about the sorts of pictures that they regard as offensive. If Wal-Mart thought that taking family pictures of children in the bathtub was out of bounds, they should have said that to their customers.

The Demaree family is now taking the offensive. They have filed two different lawsuits. The first case is against Arizona, Peoria. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office claims employees from each entity defamed the Demarees by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them. By defamation they are saying that untrue statements were made about them, and that they have ruined their reputation.

The second lawsuit was filed against Wal-Mart. The family is saying that says the company is at fault for not telling Anthony Demaree that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement.

It is too soon to tell whether Wal-Mart or Arizona officials are going to be liable for what they have done. However, I believe that what happened to the Demaree family was wrong and should not be allowed to happen again. The best way to avoid this in the future is by requiring photo developers like Wal-Mart to publish clear policies about what sorts of pictures they consider to be inappropriate, and the circumstances when they make contact to the authorities.

Ecuador v. Chevron

It's October 15, 2000 and Chevron has just agreed to buy Texaco for the price of $36 billion. By merging together the companies believed they would be able to compete with other major gasoline suppliers. The deal between the companies was swap their stocks for Texaco's. Once the merge was made the company would be renamed Chevron-Texaco. With the combined revenues of the companies estimated at $66.5 billion this sounds like a sweet deal. Because of Texaco's recline in the oil business, the merge would help to boost the company's production. This would also help Chevron from being taken over by the larger companies.

Well eight years later irony strikes. In a sixteen year conflict Chevron is being sued by residents of the Amazon for a sum of $27 billion for the alleged dumping of toxic wastes into the environment. The conflict stems from Texaco's dump of oil into the surrounding rain forests of Ecuador. The Plaintiff claims that polluted water had been dumped into the environment for almost twenty years. The dumping of the toxic waste water amounted to almost 18 billion gallons; and almost 17 million gallons in crude oil. The effects of the pollution have led to cancer, birth defects, and micarriages. This pollution of the Amazon has been dubbed "the rain forest Chernobyl". The suit, since filed in 1993 has seen little improvement in a decade.

In current news the judge ruling over the hearings was accused of bribery by Chevron. Judge Núñez Recusal was secretly taped in conversation saying he believed Texaco guilty. Due to this scandal Chevron asked that the trial be held out of Ecuador's judicial system. This was asked by Chevron accusing the court of breaking a bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Ecuador. As the trial goes on its basically being dragged out so that the trial won't be finished anytime soon.

So basically the people of Ecuador are right to be mad. The pollution of their land was was wrong and they had no right. If they don't want to pay the price for the suit then they shouldn't have done the deed. I'm not saying that Chevron is bad or anything I think it was just a unwise move buying Texaco. Though they did not technically pollute Ecuador, Chevron should still assist the residents of the polluted Amazon. Since they bought Texaco knowing that they had polluted. The responsibility falls on them to aid Ecuador. They should not try to cover this conflict up with petty claims. Chevron should at least create an organization to help the natives, and provide them with clean water. If someone came into your home and started to mess it up wouldn't you want the ones responsible to pay?