University of Phoenix
December 02, 2008
BUG, Inc., a company based in Los Angeles, California, invented an electronic recording device, which can intercept and record sounds and voices through the walls of a house, using a remote microphone. The company designs, manufactures, and sells these devices exclusively to state and federal law enforcement in various plants throughout the United States, Canada, and other foreign countries. BUG being the owner of this intellectual property will require legal protection from unauthorized user, identify any international conflict of law issues that could affect the normal day to day operation of ...view middle of the document...
Intellectual property laws are different from state to state. The federal government deals exclusively with trademarks, copyrights, and patents protection. Presently, the mass marketing of the internet, small businesses throughout the United States, new technologies, and new innovations are getting a lot [use "great deal" or "great many" instead of "a lot"] of attention in protecting intellectual property. Furthermore, business owners are encouraged to seek an intellectual property attorney to explain and interpret the law for their own protection. (Field, 2006)
International Conflict of Law Issues
The analysis of the scenario illustrates WIRETAP, Inc., as a company based in Canada and BUG Inc., a competitor based in the United States. Further, WIRETAP is considering creating a new BUG product line but will need software coding from BUG Inc Company to start the process. The only possible solution to retrieve the software coding is to send Steve, a WIRETAP Inc., employee to gain access to the BUG Company and get as much information he can gather or get a hold of the software coding.
BUG Inc is an American company which invented electronic recording devices that are manufacture throughout several manufacturing plants in the United States, Canada and other foreign countries. These electronic recording devises can intercept and record sounds and voices through the walls of a house by using of a remote microphone. In fact, state and federal agencies have exclusive contracts with BUG Inc. Moreover, the company is considering increasing its marketing in the international community, and needed someone to work in the research and development department. Steve, a WIRETAP employee was hired. BUG unaware of Steve’s affiliation with WIRETAP as well as his capability to hack and intercepted email between officers of the BUG company both in the United States and International by sharing with WIRETAP.
Under the Agency Law, Bug Inc, a principal party and Steve became the agent after his hiring, formed a principal-agent relationship. This relationship characterizes Steve’s the authority to perform his duty on the behalf of the company as working in the research and development department. The type of relationships between BUG Inc and Steve would be an express agreement, and WIRETAP’s relationship with Steve can be classified as implied agency because of Steve’s action by forwarding emails that he received from his new employer, BUG Inc to WIRETAP. Steve’s duty and performance to his principal which is BUG Inc is described as “performing the lawful duties expressed in the contract, and meeting the standards of reasonable care, skill, and diligence implicit in all contracts “(Cheeseman, 2007). In agent’s duty of notification, Steve is liable for any information that is important to the principal. Steve’s duty of accountability is to reveal his employment with WIRETAP, including unauthorized use of the company’s internet equipment and committing...