Week 7 EOC: The Lawyer

The lawyer I am contacting is a friend of my boss, Winky Wu. Brian Chau attended the University of Toronto with her and eventually went on to obtain a law degree specializing in patents and copyrights. Winky had mentioned she had spoken to him quite a bit about getting a trademark for her business name and he was of great help. When I told her about my class project, she said she would get me in contact with him and I can ask him questions pertaining to my project.

I believe he would be a great person to speak to because he deals with these issues every day and it would be a personal favor for his friend. I am excited to speak to someone who could potentially help me in the future with my business issues pertaining to trademarks. I believe it is very important to know your rights and become informed. Once you establish your brand you must protect. He is also very knowledgeable about intellectual property as well. I will call him once I develop my questions and try to get as much information as I can. Also conversing with Winky about the issues she faces as she is also building a brand would help me immensely as well.

Week 6 EOC: Illicit Trade

Illicit trade is an economic boost to any society and yet while some may see this as a “good thing”, it is nothing but destructive and harmful as the implications are far more reaching than the average person realizes. In the illegal trade business there are people devoid of moral integrity, ethical intent, and legal responsibilities, in order to gain millions and millions in financial gains. This money is untaxed therefore all money made from the illegal trade is pure profit.

It is far more prevalent than most suspect. There is illegal trade everything from people to prescription drugs. What most people don’t realize is this also is a major funding of deplorable international criminal acts like human trafficking, illegal weapons trade, and the drug trade. If criminals are willing to manufacture and move such “harmless” (to the everyday consumer) such as dvds or handbags then what else are they willing to produce and do that are far more sinister?

There needs to be much more education on what illegal trading is and what the implications are. Westerners go to China and, because of the thrill, buy counterfeit goods at a steep discount. It is likely that there is no education about what their money is actually going to support. Women, children, and men will be sold and illegally trafficked using the money from that sale. Drugs will be shipped to affluent countries and sold to young children using the money from that sale. Buying counterfeit goods is not a harmless crime. I remember seeing some advertisements warning against the purchase of counterfeit goods. It has all but disappeared now. Public awareness needs to be raised to educate the consumers of what the money from these illegal acts are really doing. Apathy against relatively low harm acts as purchasing a “knockoff” is what makes deplorable illegal trade possible. It is a chain of crime that is everywhere yet people turn a blind eye to or willingly participate in for their own selfish vanity.

Week 5 EOC: Apple-Samsung Patent Battle

The Apple-Samsung patent battle is one that seems like it has no end in sight. There are currently 4 complaints by either company against the other up for review in court in the US and dozens internationally (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/09/technology/mobile/apple-samsung-itc/index.html). These are cases based on one company violated the technology patent of the other. It originated when Apple filed a suit against Samsung alleging that Samsung stole patented design software related to the iPhone and iPad. Samsung then counteracted with a lawsuit that alleges Apple was unfairly “hording” the patent when it is to be licensed to other manufactures because it will eventually become an industry standard (http://www.natlawreview.com/article/international-trade-commission-addresses-use-standard-essential-patents-section-337-). This allows for fair competition among the different manufacturers in the industry and discourages monopolistic business practices. Since then, Apple and Samsung has gone back and forth and have tried to get the other’s products banned from import into the US. The ITC has ruled in favor for both in different cases, but none have yet to see the full weight of the courts imposing punishment.

I think it is extremely disconcerting this is the way big business is conducting themselves from an ethical standpoint. Both companies have violated the other’s right to fair completion and patents. Apple should have allowed the license of their software knowing this was a “game changer” in the way phone technology would evolve. It’s like saying the first company to create cell phones all together would not allow any other manufacture and design company to make one either and a majority of us would still be tethered to the wall. On the other hand, I also don’t believe Samsung should steal another company’s design because of this. The talent at Apple is obviously high they should not be penalized for creating great software. It’s tough to side with one company or the other, but it’s easy to say there is not a clear right and wrong in this. This is obvious because of the different court rulings. This war will not be ending anytime soon even though each company might win a battle here and there. As CNN expressed in a recent article, “The good news for consumers is that the trial proceedings in such disputes typically take so long that the products in question are often long obsolete by the time a judge rules” (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/09/technology/mobile/apple-samsung-itc/index.html). While the companies continue to take each other to court, it seems we the consumers will not have to suffer.

Week 4 EOC: Eric Snowden

The Edward Snowden controversy is on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days. Whether some hail him as a patriotic citizen who cares for the American people or whether he is a traitor to his country and should be hanged, someone has an opinion. I personally believe, and this is just MY HUMBLE OPINION, that Snowden did us (the American people) more of a disservice than helped us.

Yes, the government has unprecedented access to our personal lives. Everything that we do from the phone calls we make to the emails we right, they have access to. There are many many Americans who are outraged at the invasion of privacy they see as unconstitutional and are calling for reform in Washington. However popular this stance, I would like to take a different one. I want the government to keep track of what Americans say and do (of course, not in a 1984 “Big Brother oppression” kind of way). I fear as an American, what the consequences could be if the government does not keep track of what people are talking about. CNN recently wrote an article detailing the response of the NSA in defense of the program in question, XKeyscore: “The training materials claim XKeyscore assisted in capturing 300 terrorists by 2008.” (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/31/tech/web/snowden-leak-xkeyscore/). This might or might not be true. We may never know. However, the sheer thought of our own citizens conspiring to hurt us in another terrorist attack is enough for me to say ok, listen in on us. I would rather give up some of my personal privacy to ensure 9/11 does not happen again.

I believe we, as Americans who love and serve our country, need to take a step back and focus on national security instead of personal liberties. As the Examiner wrote, Americans are concerned about the issue of how secure this personal information is if people like Snowden has access to the information. “Tens of thousands of us have access to national secrets? How has something like this happened? Why is it necessary for so many individuals to have knowledge of our nation’s security secrets? One might go as far as to say that it’s shocking more information isn’t released more often when there are so many individuals who have access to information” (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-nsa-s-edward-snowden-controversy-where-the-nation-goes-from-here). This does address the issue of our information being put in the wrong hands. This could possibly give our nation’s enemies valuable information on what we do.

There are other countries that are tied in with the controversy as well. Recently, the Bolivian president was denied access to a flying zone because of suspicions Snowden might be on the flight and seeking asylum in Bolivia. The Huffington Post reports that, “Latin American leaders were outraged by the incident, calling it a violation of national sovereignty and a slap in the face for a region that has suffered through humiliations by Europe and several U.S.-backed military coups” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/spain-snowden-bolivia_n_3549346.html). The president’s staff assured the US Snowden was not on the plane, but expressed outrage over America’s allies restriction to airspace in their country to this flight. The implications are far outreaching just the American people’s rights to privacy. Diplomatic relationships hang in the balance because of this one man and the “Pandora’s box” he has opened.

Week 3 EOC: Legal Issues With Rolling Stone Article

There are many legal issues following the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or the Boston Bomber, as he is commonly known. The first is a fear that Dzhokhar might not be able to get a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury of his peers. “A criminal defendant has a right to a trial by jury for any charge that could result in a sentence of six months or longer” (Beatty, Samuelson, and Bredeson, 109). After the article written about him appeared in The Rolling Stones Magazine, there are very few who do not know who is he is. The entire country knew who he was once the news came out that he was named as a suspect, but now, an intimate view of his life leading up to the terrorist act was profiled. Every news outlet in America was covering the Rolling Stones article and the sensationalism of the Boston Bomber appearing on the cover.

Another issue concerning the article is whether or not the reporter exercised negligence in the way he gathered “facts” for the piece. Whether just interviewing his those that intimately know him from only one period in his life, Dzhokhar might have grounds to pursue damages on the basis that the reporter was negligent in his fact finding and that it had caused “the plaintiff…suffered harm that is genuine, not speculative” (Beatty, Samuelson, and Bredeson, 99). He can argue that the article painted him in a negative light which would tie in to the issue of him being able to even get a fair trial because of the press coverage. While this might be very tough to prove, there might be grounds for the argument in favor of Dzhokhar.

On a similar note, there could be grounds to argue a case for defamation. “The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, a vital freedom that enables us to protect other rights. But that freedom is not absolute. The law of defamation concerns false statements that harm someone's reputation” (Beatty, Samuelson, and Bredeson, 78). Dzhokhar could potentially claim that the article caused irreputable damage to his image tarnishing whatever chance he had at a fair trial. After the amount of press the Rolling Stone article got on its own, there would not be many people who have not read it and would be swayed by the statements of his drug pass and other dealings.

Week 2 EOC: Stand Your Ground

The “Stand Your Ground Law” has recently taken center stage in wake of the Trayvon Martin Case in which George Zimmerman was acquitted.  Many protesters are calling for a repeal of the law stating that it allows “-- and perhaps [encourages] -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/nra-blasts-holder-for-attacking-stand-your-ground-laws-after-zimmerman-verdict/#ixzz2ZVTyhDWA). There are both opponents and proponents for the law which has stirred up debate as to what constitutes self-defense and racial profiling. The Florida Statutes states that a person who has right to believe their life or the life of another is in danger has the right to defend themselves if “The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred” (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html). There is no mention to public domain that is occupied when the self-defense/altercation occurs. This is where people tend to get outraged as in the case of Trayvon Martin. It is natural for someone to want to protect their home or other dwelling and the people that occupy it. However, if someone is in public domain, why wouldn’t the accosted flee and seek help? Excessive force does not necessarily constitute self-defense. It can lead to unnecessary violence when a perception of danger is misconstrued.  

Proponents for the law, such as the NRA, believe the law backs up the fundamental right of each person to protect themselves and their dwelling. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing his concerns states, “…in his speech to the NAACP, suggested that the laws encourage gun owners to seek confrontation rather than avoid it” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/nra-blasts-holder-for-attacking-stand-your-ground-laws-after-zimmerman-verdict/#ixzz2ZVYDSXSz). When carrying a weapon, a person can tend to feel justified to use deadly force when threatened; however, what comes into question becomes what is the danger being faced?

Week 1 EOC: About Me

 Fashion is exhilarating. It is constantly changing and we must change along with it or be left breathlessly behind. This idea of an industry that can affect millions is why I love fashion. From a single garment we can change the ideas of many and spark a movement. My love for fashion is as multifaceted as the industry itself. The art of design moves me. In a mere second one garment can illicit such a powerful response that I am moved to tears. It can horrify, mesmerize, stupefy, or delight.  It is as profound and important as any of the great artworks treasured today. I value the art of styling an outfit to express individual taste, as well. It takes talent to show the world who you are without uttering a single word. In as much as fashion makes me feel, it also makes me strive to be something. My diligent work ethic, gregarious personality, and keen sense of business are all needed to make it in the industry. It takes a sharp mind to turn a passion into a thriving business. One day I will move to New York and succeed in a field I love. I aspire to work closely with emerging designers to help them become “the next big thing” by marketing and selling their work to fashionistas around the globe. I will be the person who helps turn their vision into a reality. Fashion does more than simply clothe me, it inspires me to make my mark in this world.