Cover all the questions please.

1- First discussion

One of the world’s most prolific spammers, Jeremy Jaynes accumulated $24 million by promoting, via spam, get-rich-quick schemes, pornography, and sham products and services. During an investigation into his activities, at his residence the police found a CD containing more than 1.3 billion user names. Jaynes also had a DVD containing e-mail addresses and other personal account information for millions of individuals, all of which had been stolen from America Online. In a Virginia state court, Jaynes was convicted of three counts of felony spamming under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA), based on the fact that he had sent more than ten thousand pieces of spam per day on three separate days, using false Internet addresses and aliases. The jury sentenced him to nine years in prison. This was the first felony conviction for spamming in the United States. On appeal, Jaynes argued that Virginia did not have jurisdiction over him and that the state’s criminal spamming statute violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. The state appellate court found that jurisdiction was proper because Jaynes utilized servers within the state and concluded that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. Jaynes appealed further. In Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the conviction. The court held that the VCCA, which prohibited the falsification of routing information in connection with the transmission of spam, “was substantially overbroad on its face, and thus unconstitutional” because it “was not limited to commercial or fraudulent transmission of e-mail, but prohibited the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious or other protected speech.”

Do you think society (the police and courts) should go further to protect people?

Or do you think they go to far already?

Why or why not?

2- Second discussion

What are some of the significant differences between criminal law and civil law? Crimes are consid­ered of­fenses against society as a whole; civil law is concerned with wrongs more personal in na­ture. Criminal de­fendants are prosecuted by public officials; civil defendants are sued by private individu­als. Those who are found guilty of crimes are punished; those who lose in a civil suit are generally required to compensate the in­jured. Criminal law is primarily statutory; much of civil law is based on judicial rul­ings. The burdens of proof are different—in a criminal proceeding, the guilt of the accused must be estab­lished beyond a reason­able doubt; in a civil proceeding, elements must be proved by a lesser standard (which varies).

How safe (from crime) do you feel in your everyday life?

Why or why not?

What can you do to help make other people feel safe?

3- Third discussion

Why should a global marketing manager consult local attorneys in other countries before creating a marketing campaign? In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission puts restrictions on claims that advertisers can make about goods and services. Other countries have the equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission and may have restrictive advertising laws just as we do here. Consequently, before spending company resources on a global marketing campaign, a marketing manager has to check with local specialized attorneys in target countries. It is better to spend a few thousand dollars upfront than to find out later that you have to redo completely your marketing campaign for the targeted country.

Have you ever done business with a company from another country?

If so, what kind?

4- fourth discussion

rade, Tariffs, Imports, Exports & Antidumping Duties

The procedure for imposing antidumping duties involves two U.S. government agencies: the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the International Trade Administration (ITA). The ITC is an in­de­pendent agency that makes recommendations to the president concerning temporary im­port restrictions. The ITC assesses the effects of dumping on domestic businesses. The ITA is part of the Department of Commerce and decides whether import sales were at less than fair market value. The ITA determination establishes the amount of antidump­ing duties, which are set to equal the dif­fer­ence between the price charged in the United States and the price charged in the exporting country. A duty may be retroactive to cover past dumping incidents.

Minimizing Trade Barriers

To minimize international trade barriers, most of the world’s leading trade nations abide by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Each member country agrees to treat other members at least as well as it treats the country that receives its most favorable treatment (normal trade rela­tions (NTR) status).

1. European Union (EU)

This regional trade association minimizes trade barriers among its member nations.

1. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

NAFTA created a regional trading unit consisting of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The goal is to eliminate tariffs in the region on substantially all goods over a period of fifteen to twenty years, while re­taining tariffs on goods imported from other countries.

1. Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)

CAFTA-DR aims to reduce tariffs and improve market access among Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States.

The citizens of the United States of America have elected a new President (President Trump) who is very outspoken. Generally speaking the United States of America accounts for approximately 5% of the world’s population and almosy 1/3 of total global spending on Research and Devolpment (for new products and technologies).

How much influence does the United States of America actually have on the policies and perceptions of the rest of the world’s leaders, govenrments and people?

How much influence does President Truump have?

How much influence do our American businesses have?

Our Products?

Our entertainment industtry?

What do you think?

5- fifth discussion

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ninth_circuit_lets_stand_restraining_order_against_trump_travel_ban/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reinstate President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The decision (PDF) released Thursday afternoon says the three-judge panel is “mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides.” However, the court said, the federal government has not demonstrated that it’s likely to succeed when the full case is heard.

The ruling came in a closely watched emergency appeal of a lawsuit filed by the state of Washington over the order. The state, which was later joined by Minnesota, alleges that the order unconstitutionally hurt the state by depriving its businesses and universities of foreign-born workers, splitting up families and restricting residents’ travel. The states argued that the order violates several federal statutes as well as the First, Fifth and 10th Amendments, and that its national security concerns are a pretext for Trump to keep a campaign promise to ban all immigration by Muslims.

The order bans nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, even those with valid visas. It also bans refugee admissions under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program for 120 days, and Syrian refugees indefinitely. The order caused worldwide protests directly after it came down January 27, and more than 40 lawsuits or habeas corpus petitions.

The three-judge panel—made of one Jimmy Carter appointee, one Barack Obama appointee and one George W. Bush appointee—rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the states had no standing to sue. Via their state universities, the court said, states have standing because teaching and research is harmed when students and academics from the seven affected nations cannot travel, and potential students or professors from those countries cannot be considered. At least one visiting scholar had already been told he would not be issued a visa, the court notes. States may assert their own rights via the universities and may also have standing to assert the rights of students and faculty, the court says.

The 9th Circuit panel flatly rejected the argument that the president “has unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” It noted that the government was not merely arguing for substantial deference on national security issues—“an uncontroversial principle”—but also that the president’s decisions are unreviewable and to review them would violate separation of powers principles.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the panel wrote. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.”

Finally, the court considered the arguments for a stay of the district court’s ruling. It emphasized that its ruling was preliminary, but said the federal government was unlikely to succeed against the states’ claims about due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. The government argued that the affected people have no due process rights, but the court said the due process clause applies to all persons—not just all citizens—within the United States, as well as certain people seeking re-entry after leaving the country.

Furthermore, the court said, the district court’s order should not be limited to green card holders—lawful permanent residents—and previously admitted aliens, or in geographic scope to the states of Minnesota and Washington. Geographic limitations would violate legal requirements that immigration law be uniform, the court said, and the limitations on application would leave out affected people who have due process rights.

Finally, the court said the balance of interests between national security and the states’ interests weighed in favor of the states. It had harsh words for the federal government, saying:

“Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the executive order to be placed immediately into effect, the government submitted no evidence to rebut the states’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years. The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.”

The court also countered the government’s argument that it had “suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers,” pointing out that the government is still free to pursue that argument in the course of the litigation. Injuries to the states’ residents, universities, students and employees, however, could be substantial and irreparable, the court said, and the DOJ’s argument that the discretionary waiver provisions were sufficient protection against such harm was unconvincing.

Minutes after the 9th Circuit’s decision was announced, President Trump responded in a tweet: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

The president had tweeted of the lower court decision earlier in the week, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” In response, ABA President Linda Klein told the ABA House of Delegates Monday that “the independence of the judiciary is not up for negotiation.”

6- Sixth discussion

Some business processes and information that cannot be patented, copyrighted, or trademarked are pro­tected against appropriation by a competitor as trade secrets. Customer lists, plans, research and develop­ment, pricing information, marketing tech­niques, production techniques, formulas, and gen­erally anything that makes an individual company unique and that would have value to a com­petitor consti­tute trade secrets.

A. State and Federal Law on Trade Secrets

Theft of trade secrets is a violation of the common law, some states’ statutes (some based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act), and a federal crime (under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996).

1. Trade Secrets in Cyberspace

The nature of technology (especially e-mail) undercuts a firm’s ability to protect its confidential in­formation, including trade secrets.

Do you think Trade Secrets are a good idea?