Faverty vs. Donald Research Essay

In this instance, Matt Theurer worked as a McDonald's employee. He was 18 years old when the specific event that caused his untimely death occurred. He was a student in high school and a guardsman for the National Guard. Matt worked his usual shift on April 4, 1988, from 3.30 to 7.30, but he also chose to work an additional shift from 12 to 8.21 in the morning. Later, Matt asked to be excused from his regular shift due to exhaustion, and the manager in control granted his request. As Matt was driving home he fell asleep on the steering wheel and rammed into the plaintiff's car. Matt succumbed to the injuries from the accident and the plaintiff also suffered grievous bodily harm. The plaintiff, in this case, went ahead to sue the defendant company due to the actions of the deceased who was their employee. He alleged that it was the actions of the defendants (to overwork the deceased) that led to the occurrence of the accident.

The issue for determination was whether McDonald's was vicariously liable after Matt left for home. The court held that the defendants did not overwork the deceased since the extra shifts that he took up were purely voluntary. The court further held that the liability of an employer does not extend outside the company so long as an employer was not undertaking any company duties. The court held that McDonald's was not liable for the accident that led to the loss of Matt's life and injury on Faverty. Therefore the judgment was correct and was in line with the letter and spirit of the law. The judge averted a negative precedent that would lead to the extension of the principle of vicarious liability outside the scope of employment relations. The extension of the working shifts by the deceased was purely voluntary by the deceased and courts were not at liberty to interfere with his intention. This will go contrary to the freedom of contract.

Apple vs. Samsung

The above case is a locus classicus in the field of intellectual property. It was one of the high-profile cases that related to patent designs between the two companies, that is, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Apple alleged that Samsung violated the designs that they had patented and this was evident from the gadgets Samsung had released. The court held that indeed Samsung had violated the patented designs by copying Apple's rounded corners and the home button. The other patent violations related to the 'tap zoom function' and the 'bounce back effect' As a result of this determination, Apple was asked to pay damages worth $ 1 billion dollars.

The verdict that was arrived at by the court seems unfair and will greatly curtail the innovations by other mobile phone manufacturers. It seems to me that the alleged patent violations did not warrant redress from the court since Samsung was only adhering to the consumer trends and preferences that had preferred to have home buttons and the rounded edges. This case has set a bad precedence that might lead to tremendous losses from other companies that would be found guilty of infringing on patent designs. The case is likely to encourage the monopoly and prevent other companies from building up on earlier designs that are patented. In other words, this would mean that technological advancement in mobile phone manufacturing would have to flow at the pace of monopolies such as Apple who have already patented most of the smartphone designs.

Supreme Court vs. Myriad Genetics

The above case related to genetic patenting. The Association of Molecular Pathology brought an action before the court to challenge an alleged gene patent by Myriad Genetics. Myriad had isolated certain genes that would make it easy in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The Supreme Court held that the patent that was held by Myriad genetics was invalid since the action that was patented did not qualify under the patentable objects. This is because the company merely isolated genes that were naturally occurring within the environment the patent was improper.

The court's determination was proper since it was not logical to patent something that existed naturally. Mere isolation could not warrant the patenting that the Myriad alleged. The verdict ensured that cancer research and treatment was not limited to few organizations but should be left open since the disease has resulted in deaths of millions of people both within the country and globally. Consenting to the patent would have meant that Myriad Genetics would have exclusive rights. This means that cancer patients would be left at the mercy of an individual enterprise.

U.S vs. Microsoft

In this case, an action was brought before the court and Microsoft Corporation was accused of engaging in anti-competitive practices that violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft was also accused of being a monopoly in the IT industry. The matter for determination herein was whether the actions of the corporation to provide for the Internet Explorer while selling its operating system was a fair practice since most people felt that it infringed on the competing companies that also offered similar browsers. In its defense, Microsoft alleged that the Internet Explorer and the Windows was one and the same thing and that is the reason why customers received the browser for free after purchasing the operating system.

The court while making its ruling held that indeed Microsoft was a monopoly and that the measures that it had taken as an enterprise were likely to have far-reaching effects on the rest of the competitors. Therefore the court order Microsoft to draw a distinction between the sale of the operating system and the sale of their browser. Further, they were also asked to disclose their API to ensure that other browsers could easy be compatible with windows. This decision was not necessarily a proper one since it showed the manner in which external interferences affected the manner in which a given entity undertook its activities. This intrusion needs to be minimized lest we want to open up a Pandora’s Box where our competitors in the various fields we venture in, can go to court and petition to have some of our trade secrets revealed in order to ensure that they are able to keep up with the competition. I believe the role of the government is to provide an environment where innovation is encouraged in order to develop trade relations. Therefore it should avoid unnecessary interferences that might distract the various enterprises.

Christian Louboutin vs. Yven St. Laurent

In this case, the plaintiff had brought an action before the court for the violation of a trademark by the defendant company by utilizing the red sole which they alleged was their own design which had been trademarked. The plaintiff relied on the Lanham Act which provided for the trademark infringement. The court stated that the apparent trademark could not be upheld since they sought to rely on the single color design that they had been utilizing in some of the shoes that they had designed. The court had asked the plaintiff to highlight the number of designs that had the red sole design that they were seeking protection of and after thorough scrutiny it was proved that only 4 of its brands had the design. I believe the court would have considered the trademark had Louboutin proved that the design was unique to them and that its infringement was likely to lead to the loss of business.

The purported trademark infringement that Louboutin alleged was ambiguous and it was not possible to limit other businesses on the use of a specific color. The court was correct in refusing to uphold the trademark since there was nothing so unique about the color and this trademark was not at all similar to the one on the lacquered soles that highlighted uniqueness in the design of the sole. The court set a proper precedence since fashion companies could have abused the process to take up patents for all colors that are available.

Bilski vs. Kappos

The plaintiff, in this case, had sought to patent some of its business processes. The issue for determination, in this case, the whether a given process could lead to a patent. In determining the eligibility the courts had previously relied on the machine-or-transformation test. The Supreme Court, in this case, deviated from the norm and highlighted that the usefulness and importance clue was the more appropriate manner in which someone could prove the validity of a patent. The court was of the considered view that a patent was not a means in which organizations could utilize to cushion the expenses they incurred while coming up with a specified design. The court's approach sought to highlight the notion that purely relying on the machine-or-transformation test (as was the norm) was likely to cause a lot of ambiguity and that a more objective test was required in order to determine the patentability of certain products or services.

The case highlights the manner in which the statute had not put a cap on the various issues that could not be patented. Therefore business entities could patent almost anything and in the event that their apparent design is infringed, they could seek redress from the courts of law. This leads to an abuse of the court's process and the legislature needs to ensure that an element of specificity is brought about in §101.

Arthur Anderson vs. United States Perez

The plaintiff was an accounting firm of Enron during the period in which the latter was facing serious allegations that led to the winding up of the entity. Arthur Anderson had directed their staff to destroy any documents they had relating to Enron due to the belief that they were likely to face investigations from the Securities and Exchange Commission. The accounting firm was later charged with obstructing the course of investigations by destroying material evidence. The court found Andersen guilty due to the fact that it was illegal for a person who was previously convicted of a felony to conduct the auditing function. In its defense, Arthur Andersen alleged that it did not instruct its employees to destroy evidence relating to the Enron case but was exercising some of its duties as set out in its document retention policy. Therefore their actions were justified.

The Supreme Court proceeded to quash the conviction by the Circuit Court. The court held that the jury had been misadvised in convicting the accused without proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had violated a given statute. The court's verdict was in tandem with its role of upholding justice and the rule of law. In criminal cases, the test of beyond reasonable doubt needed to be met. This was not at all met at the very least since the jury did not align itself to determine whether or not the actions by the accused person were indeed criminal in nature. The failure to do so was contrary to the principles of criminal justice and that is why the conviction was overturned. The jury seemed to violate the same law that they purportedly sought to protect. The highest court in the land set a good precedence in the criminal procedure and this would ensure that all cases are guided using the proper legal procedures. It was of necessity that the judicial organs to place strict adherence to the law in order for it to undertake its inherent functions diligently.

References

Faverty vs. Donald, [1995] 892 P.2d 703.

Apple Inc vs. Samsung Co., [2012] C 11-1846

Supreme Court v. Myriad Genetics Inc., [2012] 569 U.S. 133 S. Ct. 2107

U.S vs. Microsoft, [2001] 253 F.3d 34

Christian Louboutin vs. Yven St. Laurent, [2012] WL 3832285 2d.Cir

Bilski v. Kappos, [2010] 561 U.S. 593

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, [2005] 544 U.S. 696