Business Administrative Law

1-Instructions

Respond to the Discussion Question posted by your instructor (by Thursday) and respond to at least two peer’s posts (by Sunday).

At times, governments may need to acquire private property to be used for governmental purposes. For example, when the government needs property to build a new school or a firehouse, or to construct a road or freeway, it may need to acquire the necessary property from private landowners. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the government with this power. Private property can only be taken for public use. The Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to compensate the property owner when it takes private property.

This process is called eminent domain

Find a story in the news about a case where the government took property from an individual and discuss whether it was legal or not.

Share your personal thoughts on this practice.

2-Instructions

Complete the assignment posted by your instructor.

Pursuant to enabling statutes, two federal administrative agenciesthe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)created the national do-not-call registry. The national do-not-call registry is a list that contains the personal telephone numbers of telephone users who have voluntarily placed themselves on this list, indicating that they do not want to receive unsolicited calls from commercial telemarketers. Commercial telemarketers are prohibited from calling phone numbers that have been placed on the do-not-call registry. Telemarketers must pay an annual fee to access the phone numbers on the registry so that they can delete those numbers from their solicitation lists. The national do-not-call registry restrictions apply only to telemarketers calls made by or on behalf of sellers of goods or services. Charitable and fundraising calls are exempt from the do-not-call registrys restrictions. Persons who do not voluntarily place their phone numbers on the do-not-call registry may still receive unsolicited telemarketers calls.

Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., and other telemarketers sued the FTC and the FCC in several lawsuits, alleging that their free speech rights were violated and that the do-not-call registry was unconstitutional. The FTC and FCC defended the list, arguing that unsolicited telemarketing calls constituted commercial speech that could properly be regulated by the governments do-not-call registrys restrictions. The separate lawsuits were consolidated for appeal. Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission, 358 F.3d 1228, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 2564 (United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2004)

• What is commercial speech?
• Are unsolicited telemarketing calls commercial speech that is constitutionally regulated by the do-not-call registry restrictions?
• Do telemarketers act ethically in calling persons with their promotions and sales pitches?
  

  3-Instructions

  Respond to the Discussion Question posted by your instructor (by Thursday) and respond to at least two peer’s posts (by Sunday).Facts
  Nortons Country Corner (Nortons) is a cowboy bar located in Queen Creek, Arizona. The bar is owned by McDade & Sons, Inc., which is owned 100 percent by Nancy McDade. McDade is its sole officer and director. Live bands play country-and-western music at Nortons on various nights of the week. Certain copyright owners of music have authorized Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) to license the use of their copyright songs to broadcasters and to owners of concert halls, restaurants, and nightclubs for live performances of the copyrighted music. BMI attends public performances of music to determine whether any copyrights it is authorized to license are being performed without such license.One night, a BMI representative attended a live band performance at Nortons bar and recorded the songs played by the band that night. The audio recording showed that 13 copyrighted songs that BMI was authorized to license were played by the band at Nortons without the required license. BMI sued McDade & Sons, Inc. and Nancy McDade in U.S. district court for copyright infringement. The defendants argued they had not committed copyright infringement and that copyright law did not apply to owners of small establishments.Issue
  Are the defendants liable for copyright infringement?Language of the Court
  The Copyright Act gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to publicly perform, or authorize others to perform, the copyrighted work. Any person who violates this exclusive right is an infringer. Lack of authorization is established by the undisputed fact that defendants were not licensed by BMI to perform plaintiffs copyrighted musical compositions. Defendants contend that the copyright laws are unfair to small bar owners struggling to get by week by week. Defendants seek an exemption from complying with the Copyright Act, but have not cited any authority for such an exemption. The record reflects that defendants infringements were knowing and willful.Decision
  The U.S. district court held that the defendants had engaged in copyright infringement and awarded $39,000 in damages, attorneys fees, and costs to the plaintiffs, and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants infringement of copyrighted musical compositions licensed by Broadcast Music, Inc.Critical Legal Thinking Questions
  Should small-business owners of bars and other establishments be free from copyright laws?How many restaurants, bars, and other establishments play copyrighted music without the copyright owners permission?Find and share a case where an establishment was fined or sued for playing copyrighted music without permission.

  4-Instructions

  Complete the assignment posted by your instructor.Facts
  After substantial research and expenditure of money and resources, Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad), discovered the precise location and sequence of two naturally occurring segments of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in these genes can dramatically increase a females risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The average American woman has a 12 to 13 percent risk of developing breast cancer, but in a woman with the genetic mutations discovered by Myriad, the risk can range between 50 and 80 percent for breast cancer and between 20 and 50 percent for ovarian cancer. Before Myriads discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, scientists knew that heredity played a role in establishing a womans risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer, but they did not know which genes were associated with those cancers. For women who are tested and found to have the dangerous mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2, medical measures can be taken to reduce the risks of breast and ovarian cancer developing.Myriad obtained a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on its discovery. The Association for Molecular Pathology sued Myriad, seeking a declaration that Myriads patent was invalid. The U.S. district court held that Myriads claim was invalid because it covered a product of nature and was therefore not patentable. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that the isolated DNA was patent eligible. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.Issue
  Is a naturally occurring segment of DNA patent eligible?Language of the U.S. Supreme Court
  Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. Nor did Myriad create or alter the genetic structure of DNA. Instead, Myriads principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.Decision
  The U.S. Supreme Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue.Critical Legal Thinking Questions
  Will the Supreme Courts decision affect the amount of research that is conducted to find naturally occurring disease-causing DNA sequences?Should Myriad be compensated by the government for its research costs?