DISRUPTIVE INNOVATOR MINI CASE : CRESYN CO.‚LTD. 20 Oct. 2008 COMPANY OVERVIEW - Cresyn is a manufacturer of earphones‚ headphones‚ and accessories. They currently produces almost 1/3 of bundled earphones for all mobile phones worldwide. OEM/ODM manufacturing for big names such as Samsung‚ LG‚ Motorola‚ etc. is the main source of their profit (90%) and they have their own brands ‘Cresyn’ and ‘Phiaton’‚ as well. MAIN ISSUE 1. Performance - Initial Phase (1959-1981) : Cresyn was founded
Premium Mobile phone Bluetooth
case about misappropriation of a trade secret that I researched is Best Buy Co. v. TechForward Inc. What happened was that Los Angeles-based TechForward sued Best Buy for misappropriating an original TechForward trade secret for the Best Buy “Guaranteed Buyback Program” (Star Tribune). The issue with the lawsuit involves what TechForward’s business does for its consumers. What they do (a much smaller business than Best Buy Co.) is calculate the buyback value of various consumer products such as phones
Premium
Introduction: The title of my project in Bharti-Axa life insurance co ltd was given to me by my mentor in the company . He is a agency manager in the company. He was very helpful and helped me during the course of my project. . Life advisors: Life advisors have to do financial planning of his clients and sell financial solutions (policies) to them. They are paid on the commission basis which is the percentage of the premium of policies they have sold. The average commission is 18%. There
Premium Insurance
Annan Aborhey‚ who was my guidance angel during the period of writing the thesis. I also thank Miss Mary Boatemaa of Youth Center for typesetting the thesis. My sincere thanks also go to the B.O.D‚ Management and Staffs of Suame Circuit Co-op. Credit Union Ltd for allowing me to use their company for this study. I thank my wife Mrs Deborah Amponsah – Doku for her unflinching support and understanding during my studies. My deepest appreciation and gratitude goes to my mother‚ Mrs Margaret Amponsah
Premium Risk management
Assignment #4: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC May 27‚ 2012 HRM 510 Employment Law For Human Resource Practice What was the legal issue in this case? This case is followed by the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is an organization that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on their jobs. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. In this case with Williams Construction
Premium
1) Citation Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co 248 N.Y. 339‚ 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Court of Appeals of New York 2) Key facts a. The plaintiff‚ Helen Palsgraf‚ was waiting for a train on a station platform. b. A man carrying a package was rushing to catch a train that was moving away from a platform across the tracks from Palsgraf. c. As the man attempted to jump aboard the moving train‚ he seemed unsteady and about to fall. d. A railroad guard on the car reached forward to grab him and another guard
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson New Orleans United States
PART B: Historically‚ owning a piece of land meant that you would own everything above and below the soil‚ reaching from the ‘heavens’ themselves down to the deepest core of the Earth. The popular maxim "Cuius est solum‚ eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” which translates to “the person who owns the land owns it from the heavens above to the centre of the earth below. This has been considered within the legal world as a traditional starting point of property law and shapes what is understood
Premium Property Law Common law
Merck & Co Case Analysis 1. Problem Statement – Merck & Co ‘s stock market performance had trailed that of competitors in light of the concerns that company was not able to adapt to the changes in environment where as competitors was using their aggressive marketing functional unit as their competitive edge. Company also failed to take advantage of its own market opportunities especially the outcome of aftermarket studies of drugs they launched .Company was very late in adapting to
Premium Organizational structure Marketing Product management
The same issue was again before the court in 1945 in McClintic v. Dunbar Land Co. The case involved six notes that were secured by a vendors’ lien. The notes were payable on a sequential‚ consecutive basis with the first becoming payable on November 26‚ 1920 and the last on November 26‚ 1925. The plaintiffs filed the action for non-payment of the notes in 1943. The defendants contended that W. Va. Code § 55-2-5 barred action on the first three notes because more than 20 years had passed. The
Premium
Crown Awards‚ Inc. v. Discount Trophy & Co.‚ Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8540 (2009) Material Facts of the Case: Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies sold through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors‚ and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown
Premium Copyright infringement Copyright