About the Download

Using the Web and/or other sources of literature as needed, complete the following problems: Attached
 
Chapter 5 – Problems Problems: Chapters 5 and 6
and Problem Cases: Problem 13
Chapter 6 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 11
 
Responses should not typically exceed 200 words for each problem and should contain citations from relevant sources if applicable.
 
Complete the problems for each chapter first by stating the question(s) you are addressing, then by stating your responses. All problems and answers should be turned in on the same page/document.
 
Chap 5 #13 pg 174: Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. (GW), a provider of accounting and financial personnel services, created a database containing confidential client tracking information. The firm took steps to maintain the confidentiality of the information and thereby obtain the competitive advantage that the information provided. GW and a corporation that had later acquired the firm sued William Nichols, a former employee of GW and the successor corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that Nichols used some of the confidential information in the above-referred-to database after he had taken a job with a competing fi rm. Nichols’ supposed use of the information allegedly breached a contract he had entered into with GW when he was employed there. In their complaint fi led in federal court, GW and the successor corporation contended that Nichols’ actions violated the federal Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Act (CFAA) and constituted breach of contract in violation of state common law. The CFAA section on which the plaintiffs relied, § 1030 (a) (5), states, in pertinent part:
Whoever-
(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of . . . information . . . and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage . . .; and
(5)(B)(i) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused . . . loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period . . . aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value.
A definition section of the CFAA defines damage as “impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information.”
Nichols moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ CFAA §
1030 (a)(5) claim because of a supposed failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He argued that even if he used information in the database, he did not impair the integrity or availability of the information or the database. How did the court rule on Nichols’ motion regarding the § 1030 (a)(5) claim? Did that section of the CFAA apply to this alleged instance of trade secret misappropriation?
 
Chap 6 #11 pg 213: At the time of the events described below, California’s statute dealing with a deceased celebrity’s right of publicity read as follows: “Any person who uses a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from [the legal owner of the deceased personality’s right of publicity] shall be liable” to the right of publicity owner. The statute also set forth exemptions from the consent requirement for uses in news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts; in plays, books, magazines, newspapers, musical compositions, or film, television, or radio programs; or in other works of political or news-related value. There was also an exemption for “single and original works of fi ne art.” Comedy III Production, Inc., owns the rights of publicity of the deceased celebrities who, through their comedy act and films, had become familiar to the public as “The Three Stooges.” Relying on the statute quoted above, Comedy III brought a right of publicity action against artist Gary Saderup and the corporation of which he was a principal. Without Comedy III’s consent, the defendants (referred to her collectively as “Saderup”) had produced and profited from the sale of lithographs and T-shirts bearing a depiction of The Three Stooges. The depiction had been reproduced from Saderup’s charcoal drawing, which featured an accurate and easily recognizable image of the Stooges. The trial court awarded damages to Comedy III after concluding that Saderup had violated the right of publicity statute and that neither the exemptions set forth in statute nor the First Amendment furnished a defense. When the California Court of Appeals affirmed, Saderup appealed to the Supreme Court of California. Were the lower courts correct in ruling in favor of Comedy III?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Save For Later

You must log in and be a buyer of this download to submit a review.