Clark_11e-AM-Ch52.doc - C HAPTER 5 2 INTERNATIONAL L AW IN...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
411 C HAPTER 52 I NTERNATIONAL L AW IN A G LOBAL E CONOMY A NSWERS TO Q UESTIONS AT THE E NDS OF THE C ASES CASE 52.1—WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? (PAGE 1074) Suppose that, after this decision, Jazz fully compensated Fuji for infringing sales of the LFFPs. Would Jazz have acquired the right to refurbish those LFFPs in the future? Explain. In at least one case, cited by the court in the Fuji case, an accused infringer was held to have received an implied license on the payment of full compensation for its past infringement. In other cases in which judgments were not paid, the infringers were held not to have acquired such licenses. Arguments against such “awards” might turn on the culpability or knowledge of the infringer. Arguments in their favor might focus on the economic equities of a situation. THE GLOBAL DIMENSION How does prohibiting the importing of goods that infringe U.S patents protect those patents outside the United States? Prohibiting the importing of goods that infringe U.S. patents into the United States reduces the incentive to produce goods that violate U.S. patents. Reducing that incentive could have a significant impact on patent infringement and possibly the production of “gray market” goods because the United States is a major market for many goods. CASE 52.2—WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? (PAGE 1077) Suppose that Carnero had been an American working for BSA and BSB. Would the result in this case have been the same? Discuss. The result in this case would not likely have been different if Carnero had been an American, assuming that all of the other facts were the same. Under the court’s reasoning, employee whistleblowers—American or foreign—working abroad may not be protected from their employers’ retaliation under this section of the SOXA. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION How might the court’s decision in this case frustrate the basic purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is to protect investors in U.S. securities markets and the integrity of those markets? Carnero argued that 18 U.S.C. Section 1514A
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
412 UNIT ELEVEN: SPECIAL TOPICS should be given extraterritorial effect, not only because his claim “fits within the literal language of the statute” but also “to limit the operation of the statute to purely domestic conduct in the United States would improperly insulate the foreign operations of covered companies” and thereby frustrate SOXA’s basic purpose. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered this argument to have “some force.” CASE 52.3—QUESTIONS (PAGE 1079) 1A. What are the ramifications for the defendants of the ruling in this case? Because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, the case will return to the lower court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Many or most, if not all, of the corporate defendants—and others—could face huge claims for aiding and abetting the South African government in maintaining its apartheid system.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/17/2011 for the course LAW 1024066 taught by Professor K during the Spring '09 term at Fairleigh Dickinson.

Page1 / 7

Clark_11e-AM-Ch52.doc - C HAPTER 5 2 INTERNATIONAL L AW IN...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online