Sample Resume : Code Of Conduct Problem Essay

Deep Topics and others file a suit against CCS, alleging infringement of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Which type of intellectual property is involved in this situation? What is CCS’s likely defense? How is a court most likely to rule? Explain. 7) On May 1, Brand Name Industries, Inc. (BNI), sent Carol a letter, via overnight delivery, offering to employ her to audit BNI’s financial statements for the current year for $10,000. In the letter, BNI stated that Carol had ten days to accept. On May 5, Carol sent BNI a fax that stated, “The price for the audit seems too low. Would you consider paying $12,000?” BNI received the fax. The next day, Dan offered to conduct the audit for $8,000. On learning of Dan’s offer, Carol immediately emailed BNI, agreeing to do the work for $10,000. BNI received this e-mail on May 7. Explain why BNI and Carol do, or do not, have a contract.

M International and W Inc. have been engaged in long-standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Pertains to the accounting for this contingency loss, this memo has made the following conclusions:

To explain more about the Code's nature, it begins with direction for legal procedure and the statement of penalties for unjust accusations, false testimony, and injustice done by judges; then follow laws concerning property rights, loans, deposits, debts, domestic property, and family rights. The sections covering personal injury indicate that penalties were imposed for injuries sustained through unsuccessful operations by physicians and for damages caused by negligence in various trades  (product liability). Rates are fixed in the code for commerce and trade. Later in the report, this part will be explained further.

Howell Jewelry World entered into an at will employment contract with Jennifer Lawson (“defendant”). The company provided a legal and enforceable employment contract. The defendant read, accepted and signed the employment contract offered under no duress or coercion. A covenant not to compete nor disclose company patent secrets to Howell’s competitors the defendant initialed and signed. Jennifer Lawson was terminated from employment due to excessive tardiness. Upon termination, it was revealed to Howell Jewelry World, the defendant is an employee of Triumph Jewels, another company in competition with Howell. The defendant is liable for breach of covenant not to compete. Howell Jewelry World is pursuing legal actions against Triumph Jewels for Jennifer Howell’s breach of covenant not to compete.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will describe the legality of the case by reviewing the

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

This case analysis explores the possibility of Breezy, a leading supplier of carburators and air filters in North America, the possibility of developing offshore busines in countries where car manufacturing is growing. The report is structured as follows: First, there are five important questions that Breezy must consider and ask itself before developing a relationship with a new customer. After Breezy decides to go offshore, it will have to go through the negotiating process, which involves five steps. Breezy then, must have capabilities of how an offshore business is organized, consider the many different costs and risks involved in the implementation and decide how it will finance the project. The report also talks

Accounting and management are the major pillars of an organization that contributes to the country’s economy. Introduction of AICPA Code of Professional Conduct helps in controlling the business operation especially in the accounting and management departments. Accounting and management fraud have been experienced whereby through corruption or other means, entrusted managers and accountants tend to be selfish in undertaking their duties. These factors are well addressed by the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct principles. Therefore, the study seeks to introduce two case studies whereby the management fraud have been experienced. Furthermore, the study will incorporate the use of AICPA Code of Professional Conduct in controlling the situation to ensure harmonious business operation in the management.

Professors Julio J. Rotemberg and John T. Gourville prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are

Deep Blue Seaways (a UK based company) currently outsources all its IT works to a number of leading consultancies.

#8) There is no standard of proof for patent invalidation in JPO proceedings or in Japanese court litigation.

Phenomenons of indirect patent infringement in China have become increasingly serious, however，as mentioned above，the system of indirect infringement is not prescribed in Chinese patent law, therefore，although there have been a number of judicial practice of indirect patent infringement cases, there are still no general rules， the trial basis of indirect patent infringement cases in courts across the country is inconsistent. Many judges use Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 148 of the Supreme People 's Court 's (SPC) Opinions on Several Issues Relating to the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law as trial basis, while others follow indirect infringement of patent principles directly to judge infringement.

The final issue in the interpretation of s. 19(a) is the provision about trade names. The section states that, even if the particular purpose is known, ‘in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose’. Does this mean that because An Lushan ordered ‘Yellow Turban’ noodles he has bought by its trade name and therefore there is no implied term under s 19(a)? This was the early interpretation in Wren v Holt (1903) where the purchaser asked for ‘Holden’s beer’. However this interpretation was changed in later cases. The courts have given not given the provision about ‘patent or trade names’ its full literal meaning. An example is the case of Baldry v Marshall (1925) where the buyer bought a ‘Bugatti’. The modern interpretation is that the trade name proviso of s.19(a) only protects Wu Zetian, the seller, if An Lushan specified the goods under their trade name in such a way to indicate that Wu Zetian’s skill and judgement was not being relied upon. This is not the case here so the trade name proviso would not apply.

The following are the main points of contention between the two parties involved in the case. The points before the Judiciary were as follows:  The first relates to the nature of OFCDs themselves, and;  The second is on whether SEBI has the jurisdiction to regulate OFCDs.  Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956