business answers cengage
Mario Garcia
Business Scenarios and Case Problems Chapter 5
5-1. IT depends on what the patent covers. IF the patent covers, specific physical details of the device, and the same exact characteristics are built for a different purpose, it is still infringement of the previous device. In this case Exerton’s device is “similar” but not identical, then there’s no infringement.
5-2.
1. In this case Maruta was making a photocopy of an article in a scholarly journal. This is not consider as an infringement because in section 107 of the of the Copy Right Act it states that “for purposes such as …scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright”.
2. This time this can be consider as a trademark infringement because the trademark is being copying to a substantial degree or used in its entirety by one who is not entitled to use it.
3. This is a copyright infringement. This time the recorded video form the television programs are being used as a “commercial nature” and “the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”. Therefore the DVD storeowner is copying copyrighted works in their entirety for commercial purposes.
5-3. In this case, the parties’ conduct established that Wilchcombe gave LJESB and the other defendants a license to use his song. Lets remember that he created the song at Lil Jon’s request. Meaning that he knew that it would be used on LJESB’s album and that it would be widely distributed. Wilchcombe never indicated to any of the defendants that their use of the song would constitute copyright infringement. In othere words, we can say that the license constitutes a valid defense to to Wilchcombe’s claim of copyright infringement, and the defendants are entitled to a judgment in their favor on that claim.
5-4. Trade secrets consists of anything that makes a company unique and that would be important to a competitor. Therefore, theft of trade secrets is a federal crime. In
Business Scenarios and Case Problems Chapter 5
5-1. IT depends on what the patent covers. IF the patent covers, specific physical details of the device, and the same exact characteristics are built for a different purpose, it is still infringement of the previous device. In this case Exerton’s device is “similar” but not identical, then there’s no infringement.
5-2.
1. In this case Maruta was making a photocopy of an article in a scholarly journal. This is not consider as an infringement because in section 107 of the of the Copy Right Act it states that “for purposes such as …scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright”.
2. This time this can be consider as a trademark infringement because the trademark is being copying to a substantial degree or used in its entirety by one who is not entitled to use it.
3. This is a copyright infringement. This time the recorded video form the television programs are being used as a “commercial nature” and “the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”. Therefore the DVD storeowner is copying copyrighted works in their entirety for commercial purposes.
5-3. In this case, the parties’ conduct established that Wilchcombe gave LJESB and the other defendants a license to use his song. Lets remember that he created the song at Lil Jon’s request. Meaning that he knew that it would be used on LJESB’s album and that it would be widely distributed. Wilchcombe never indicated to any of the defendants that their use of the song would constitute copyright infringement. In othere words, we can say that the license constitutes a valid defense to to Wilchcombe’s claim of copyright infringement, and the defendants are entitled to a judgment in their favor on that claim.
5-4. Trade secrets consists of anything that makes a company unique and that would be important to a competitor. Therefore, theft of trade secrets is a federal crime. In