Garelli Wong & Associates

    Garelli Wong & Associates

    Using the Module 2 readings, course website links, the GCU Library, the Internet, and/or other sources of literature as needed, complete the following problems:

    Chapter 5 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 13
    Chapter 6 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 11
    Complete the problems for each chapter first by stating the question(s) you are addressing, then by stating your responses

    13), Inc. (GW), a provider of accounting and fi nancial personnel services, created
    a database containing confidential client trackinginformation. The fi rm took steps to maintain the confi
    dentiality of the information and thereby obtain the
    competitive advantage that the information provided.
    GW and a corporation that had later acquired the fi rm
    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 definesdamage 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?

    11) 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
    fi lm, 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 fi lms, 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
    tohere collectively as “Saderup”) had produced and
    profi ted 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
    thatSaderup 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?
    ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

     

     

     

                                                                                                                                      Order Now