Question;chapter 6 prob 11.At the time of the events described below, California?s statute dealing with a deceased celebrity?s right ofpublicity read as follows: ?Any person who uses adeceased personality?s name, voice, signature, photograph,and likeness, in any manner, on or in products,merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertisingor selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consentfrom [the legal owner of the deceased personality?sright of publicity] shall be liable? to the rightof publicity owner. The statute also set forth exemptions from the consent requirement for uses in news,public affairs, or sports broadcasts, in plays, books, magazines, newspapers, musical compositions, orfi lm, television, or radio programs, or in other works of political or news-related value. There was also anexemption for ?single and original works ofline art.?Comedy III Production, Inc., owns the rights ofpublicity of the deceased celebrities who, throughtheir comedy act and fi lms, had become familiar tothe public as ?The Three Stooges.? Relying on the statute quoted above, Comedy III brought a rightof publicity action against artist Gary Saderup and the corporation of which he was a principal. WithoutComedy III?s consent, the defendants (referred to here collectively as ?Saderup?) had produced andprofi ted from the sale of lithographs and T-shirts bearing a depiction of The Three Stooges. The depictionhad been reproduced from Saderup?s charcoal drawing, which featured an accurate and easilyrecognizable image of the Stooges. The trial court awarded damages to Comedy III after concludingthat Saderup had violated the right of publicity statute and that neither the exemptions set forth instatute nor the First Amendment furnished a defense. When the California Court of Appeals affi rmed,Saderup appealed to the Supreme Court of California. Were the lower courts correct in ruling in favor ofComedy III?chapter 5 prob 13 Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. (GW), a providerof accounting and fi nancial personnel services, createda database containing confi dential client trackinginformation. The firm took steps to maintain the confidentiality of the information and thereby obtain the competitive advantage that the information provided.GW and a corporation that had later acquired the fi rm sued William Nichols, a former employee of GW andthe successor corporation. The plaintiffs alleged thatNichols used some of the confi dential information inthe above-referred-to database after he had taken ajob with a competing fi rm. Nichols? supposed use ofthe information allegedly breached a contract he had entered into with GW when he was employed there.In their complaint fi led in federal court, GW and the successor corporation contended that Nichols? actionsviolated the federal Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and constituted breach of contract inviolation of state common law. The CFAA section on which the plaintiffs relied, ? 1030 (a)(5), states, inpertinent part:Whoever-(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of...information... and as a result of such conduct, intentionallycauses damage without authorization, to a protected computer,(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer withoutauthorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage, or (iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage..., and(5)(B)(i) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii)of subparagraph (A), caused... loss to 1 or more personsduring any 1-year.. aggregating at least $5,000 in value.A defi nition section of the CFAA defi nes damage as ?impairment to the integrity or availability of data, aprogram, a system, or information.? Nichols moved to dismiss the plaintiffs? CFAA ? 1030 (a)(5) claim because of a supposed failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He argued that even if he used information in the database, he did not impair the integrity or availability ofthe information or the database. How did the courtrule on Nichols? motion regarding the ? 1030 (a)(5) claim? Did that section of the CFAA apply to thisalleged instance of trade secret misappropriation?
Paper#58929 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $22