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.