Intellectual and technological property Essay

In the United States, the stakes of identifying the best laws and policies for the use of intellectual and scientific place are very high (U. S. Congress, 1986). As a cosmopolitan rule, developers of computer parcel seek legal security for intellectual property by using traditional legal mechanisms found in copyright, craft secret, patent, trademark and licensing. Of these forms of harborion the most easily attainable protection is by dint of copyright law, which makes it illegal to make or distribute copies of copyrighted corporal in the U. S. without authorization (Qu & Potkonjak, 2003).BUGusa should be using, first and foremost, the legal protection of copyright laws in order to guard its intellectual property. In an type of educating Congress Members regarding the steps interpreted by the FBI for trade and intellectual theft, an utilisation of a case was presented by the FBI to the Congress. Patrick Worthing was arrested by the FBI after agreeing to sell Pittsb urgh casing Glass study for $1000 to a Pittsburgh agent posing as a representative of Owens-Corning, Toledo, Ohio.Patrick Worthing was sentenced to 15 months in jail and three eld probation for the Theft of Trade Secrets (Gallagher, 1998). Wiretime would take hold to face similar liabilities if Steve is caught in the represent of transferring important corporate or intellectual information to his mother company. Walter could be guilty of may be a tort of intentional infliction of mad distress. The threat to hurt Steven can be interpreted as an assault. These claims rise from allegedly wrongful employment practices.The tort requires that the defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous and that severe physical or emotional harm resulted. Courts however demand more (Lindemann & Grossman, 1983). Seeing as Walter did not harm Steven in any way apart from sound to hurt him, the chances of liability held against Walter and BUGusa are not tantamount to a lot. Steve himself ha d give over the information to Walter and had left the small room without being physically harmed.Liu and Ye (2001) discuss various issues of security and application security related to software agents ranging from market chaos, agent authorization and transaction. For security, the prime advice I would give to BUGusa would be to protect the entire system with consistent and appropriate security measures. sometimes the system is complex and often not designed with security in mind. Therefore it is important to scrutinize each component for its security weaknesses and protect it accordingly (Interactive Information Security Policies, 2007).In my opinion, BUGusa may not take over to face liability if the vendor was attacked. The vandalism in the city is not under the control of the company and BUGusa must highlight the point that the company does as far as it can by making the lay lot and dock are well-lit. As for the vandalism and the theft, these are avenue crimes which the gov ernment and law-enforcement agencies are to be held accountable for. BUGusa may defend itself by suffering a loss themselves through the vandalism.It may also go on to assure for the future that increased security measures would be taken in order to avoid such circumstances. BUGusa needs to prove that Wiretime has connected some criminal activity against them. If Steve has been bribed by Wiretime to commit this act, or has been successfully proven into being seen as committing a pattern of criminal activity, anti-racketeering law can be claimed. BUGusa must prove that Steve has been passing valuable information to Wiretime for over a large period of time. Sally DoGood may have a successful case against BUGusa for the tort of Product Liability.The production, through legal definition, has ca utilize a defect due to the defect resulting from the basic criteria that it involved sellers failure to exercise reasonable care and would cause a reasonable person in position of the buyer to expect the used product to present no greater risk of defect than if the product were new. Experts also say that if the plaintiff discovers that the alleged defect has been discovered, (which may be argued in the case of BUGusa) the plaintiff can move on to a negligence claim (Allee, 1984).