Posted by Krista Cerpina.

Last week the Department of Homeland Security placed a ban on large electronics during non-stop flights to the US from airports in North Africa and Middle East. The ban forbids passengers to carry on board any electronic devices larger than a cell phone. Many passengers traveling for business are almost “inseparable” from their laptops because many prefer to use travel time for work, so the new ban has been a headache not only for the airlines but also for their customers. Corporate business travelers are the most important block of costumers to the affected airlines, therefore airlines are cleverly defying the ban to keep their customers satisfied.

The travel industries well known airlines such as Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, and Turkish Airlines have all been coming up with creative ways to counter the ban. To minimize the time passengers have to spend apart from their electronic devices, Emirates announces a service on March 23, that will allow the passengers to not check their devices in their luggage, rather the staff members will collect them at the gate. The laptops and other electronic devices will then be packed in secure boxes before storing them in cargo hold. Emirates Airline President Sir Tim Clark spoke to Business Insider and addressed the new operations regarding the ban. “Our aim is to ensure compliance with the new rules, while minimizing disruption to passenger flow and impact on customer experience,” Clark said in a statement. “Our new complimentary service enables passengers, particularly those flying for business, to have the flexibility to use their devices until the last possible moment.”

Other airlines such as Etihad Airways have also been trying to find ways to compromise with their costumers while not disobeying the new ban. “To help guests keep in touch with work, friends and family, we are offering First & Business Class guests free WiFi and iPads on all our US-bound flights, beginning Sunday, April 2,” Etihad said. The airlines and their passengers are still adjusting to the new ban, but according to Tim Clark, the airlines do not have any conclusive data on the long-term effect the laptop ban will have on their business and they do not expect to see any changes until May.

Krista is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Chris Jaramillo.

This article from CNBC dated February 1, 2017 states Volkswagen rigged many of their automobiles that have larger diesel engines to cheat and pass emissions tests. Wolfsburg-based Volkswagen has admitted it equipped diesel engines with software that turned the emissions controls off during every day driving which resulted in cars emitting 40 times the US limits of nitrogen oxides. This pollutant is very harmful to people and about 11 million cars worldwide have the deceptive software.

In a settlement Volkswagen has agreed to pay anywhere from $1.2 billion to as much as $4 billion in buybacks and compensation to settle the claims.  About 78,000 Audi’s, Volkswagen’s, and Porsche’s with 3.0-liter diesel engines are involved. The proposed settlement was filed before Judge Charles R. Breyer in US District Court in San Francisco. Previously, about 500,000 smaller 2.0-liter diesel engines were also rigged to cheat and pass emissions tests and Volkswagen agreed on a $15 billion in that settlement. The head of Volkswagen Group of America, Hinrich J Woebcken stated “all of our customers with affected vehicles in the United States will have a resolution available to them.  We will continue to work to earn back the trust of all our stakeholders.”  Owners of older models from 2009-2012 will be offered buybacks or trade-ins because they cannot be fixed to pass the emissions tests. They will also be monetarily compensated according to a statement from the owners’ attorneys.

The US environmental authorities must approve Volkswagens proposed repair and the deal must still get court approval to take effect. Many German investors are suing the company saying that were not informed in a timely manner and Volkswagens shares plunged drastically.  Even though the company’s reputation took a beating sales didn’t stop and they passed Toyota last year to become the world’s largest carmaker by sales.

Chris is finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

On Oct. 30, 2014, Sembcorp Marine’s finance director Wee Sing Guan was sentenced to 39 months in prison for falsifying the accounts of the group’s Jurong Shipyard, Sembcorp’s wholly owned unit. The company lost “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of marked-to-market losses that Wee had incurred on foreign exchange and options trades positions he held with a host of banks, including OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), Societe Generale (SocGen) and Standard Chartered Bank.”

According to criminal law, falsifying account records is an unlawful action. Falsifying records can influence the stock market by making investors believe the company’s stock is worth it to buy. But after a company goes bankrupt, people who hold the stock will lose all their money. The offenses “carry a maximum penalty of an unspecified fine and a seven-year jail term, for each charge.”

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Orintia Daniels.

Bankrupt: “(of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts.” According to dictionary.com, this adjective simply means that a particular person or organization is in debt and owes money to another organization or person. I have came across an article called “How do I declare Bankruptcy?” which explains the various forms of bankrutpcy as well as how someone can actually declare bankruptcy.

Let’s talk chapters! No, not just any chapters; specifically, let’s review Chapters 7, 11, and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Let’s explain, starting with Chapter 7.

Have you ever heard the term “Everything must go?” Well, Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, states that whoever files under that chapter might lose everything. For example, a person may lose his or her home, due to not being able to pay the bank their debts. Chapter 7 “liquidates your assets to pay off as much of your debt as possible. When it is all done, you are left with the least debt possible, but you usually have to sacrifice a number of possessions along the way to make that happen.” (HG.org).

On the other hand Chapter 11 is mainly for businesses, such as corporations and partnerships, but can be available to individuals. It has no limits on the amount of debt, as Chapter 13 does. It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt. Under Chapter 13, the Code:

allows the filer to reorganize their debt, making it more manageable. Under a Chapter13 bankruptcy, the debtor is able pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. For filers with consistent, predictable incomes, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be a great way out of debt by creating a sort of legal grace period. If the debtor makes all payments required under the bankruptcy order, and there are still debts remaining at the end of the grace period, those debts are discharged” (HG.org).

Overall, Chapter 13, is primarily for personal struggles, by anyone who may not be able to pay off their debts.

For one to declare bankruptcy, there are two main methods: as an individual, which is to voluntarily file for bankruptcy, or wait for creditors to ask the court to declare you bankrupt. To further understand the different ways to file for bankruptcy and the different forms of bankruptcy, I personally suggest that you continue your interest on the following website.

Orintia is a marketing major with a minor in economics at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Anthony Leineweber.

The coal business just isn’t what it used to be and some companies are finding that out the hard way.  Most recently, it was Bumi, “Asias most-indebted coal miner,” that had to bite the bullet and file for creditor protection here in the U.S. “Bumi Investment Pte Ltd listed assets and debt of as much as $1 billion each in Chapter 15 papers filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.” Chapter 15 bankruptcy is fairly new as of 2005 and deals with problems like debt and the control of certain assets involving more than one country. “Companies use Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code to fend off creditor claims in the U.S. while they reorganize their finances elsewhere.”

“Bumi Investment and Jakarta-based Bumi Resources failed to make a coupon payment on $700 million of October 2017 notes last month, following a 30-day grace period.” Clearly, they are in serious trouble after not being able to get the money together even after being granted a 30 day grace period. About a week ago, the Singapore court disallowed any action or continuation by creditors for six months. “The court-obtained moratorium marks another chapter in efforts to contain the fallout in their mainstay coal business. Coal prices have slumped more than 50 percent since the end of 2010.”

Anthony is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Katelyn Scott. 

Equal pay has been an ongoing issue with women in business in society today. Equal weekly earnings for full time workers did not improve from 2016- 2017 in the United States (Hegewisch). For some reason women can do the same job as men, yet their pay is not always the same. A female today could have the same qualifications as a male and still get paid less. Recently a gender equal issue was uncovered at the University of Denver. It seems that it has been a topic brought up before at the University, but the University turned a blind eye to fixing the reoccurring issue. At the University of Denver, seven law professors realized they were doing the same work as their male colleagues, but were getting paid almost $20,000 less than the male professors (Flaherty). When will women get justice in the workforce?

Furthermore, Lucy Marsh a longtime professor apart of the law school at the University started noting the pay gap. Stated by Colleen Flaherty, “Marsh told the EEOC in 2013 that she was paid less than all of her full-time, male colleagues — even those who were hired long after her” (Flaherty). This means it took 5 years to settle this case. The EEOC sued Denver for violating the Equal Pay Act and Federal non-discrimination laws. The EEOC also found evidence of pay gaps dating back to the 1970s and were even informed about these issues (Flaherty). Obviously the University did not fix the on-going issue. This lawsuit would not occur if the University fixed the pay gap when informed years ago, but unfortunately these seven professors had to face unfair compensation. Flaherty states “the university employed nine female full time professors whose average annual salary was about $140,000, compared to about $159,700 for male full professors” (Flaherty). The gap between a female and male professor with the same role is approximately $19,700. That’s not a small pay gap. It is unfortunate these woman had to fight for equal pay and were not getting the compensation or justice deserved with their time spent at University of Denver.

In addition, the University of Denver had to pay $2.6 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit involving the University’s Sturm College of Law (Rose). The University is also going to make significant changes to its law faculty compensation policies. This is great news considering the women finally get the justice they deserve. As a woman, I hope in the future gender discrimination is no longer existent. There are laws that grant gender equal compensation, but they should be taken more seriously and be closely watched in order to create a truly equal environment. Each of the women involved worked just as hard as the others there, where they were competing against men or other women. Some measures to improve the quality of jobs held by women are to tackle occupational segregation, enforce equal pay, and come up with more opportunities in the work place for women (Hegewisch). Hopefully one day gender equal compensation will one day be consistent.

Works Cited:

Flaherty, Colleen. “U. Of Denver Settles with EEOC, Agreeing to Pay $2.66 Million to Seven Female Law Professors Who Alleged Gender-Based Pay Bias.” Esports Quickly Expanding in Colleges, Inside Higher Ed, 18 May 2018,

www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/18/u-denver-settles-eeoc-agreeing-pay-266-million-seven-female-law-professors-who.

Hegewisch, Ariane, et al. “The Gender Wage Gap: 2017 Earnings Differences by Race and Ethnicity.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 7 Mar. 2018,

Rose , Johnathan. “DU Settles Unequal Pay Lawsuit, Will Pay $2.66 Million to 7 Female Professors.” Bizjournals.com, The Business Journals, 17 May 2018,

Posted by Marissa Aniolowski.

These two articles both address the same issue that occur in two different companies. This issue is sexual discrimination. In the first article, a woman accuses AutoNation of promoting a male over her solely because she is a female. The second article, addresses the issue of gender pay in the company Oracle.  As a female business student, I am concerned about being a woman in the business world because of issues like these.

In the first article, Jaqueline de la Torre filed a complaint about AutoNation because when the Parts Manager position opened up, AutoNation immediately hired a male despite the fact that they had a female Assistant Parts Manager who had been on the job for 10 years and was more than qualified to be promoted. According to De la Torre she was told they “needed a man” for the position, and she was then required to teach the new Parts Manager how to do his job because he was previously a sales associate at the dealership. Because the company failed to promote her, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing AutoNation for violating Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a female, I would defend De la Torre’s side because I know women are just as capable as men are. It is a difficult accusation to prove, but women are undermined in the work world, and that needs to change.

In the second article, three women in the senior product development role are accusing Oracle of paying their male colleagues in the same position more money. The article states, “It’s the third time this year that Oracle has been in the news around pay discrimination. In January, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Oracle claiming the company systematically pays its white male workers more than women, and men of color.” The women’s lawyer is still searching for evidence to support their claim, but their lawyer, “says he wants to file a class action lawsuit that would cover some 1,200 women at Oracle.” How you prove the company is paying the white men more money than the rest of the workers based solely on their gender and color is a difficult task to prove, but why issues like this are still occurring is concerning. How long will it take people to realize that men, women, and people of different races are all capable of doing the same work, and the diversity will only help companies grow?

In many businesses, discrimination is still currently a big issue. It is an issue nationwide, outside the business realm that needs to be fixed, and should no longer be tolerated. The issues with these cases is finding enough evidence to support the claims and prove that they have been discriminate. The great strides that have been made to equality of race and gender are not something to ignore, but in today’s day and age, any person should not tolerate discrimination.

Marissa is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

EEOC sues AutoNation for alleged sex discrimination

https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/02/eeoc-sues-autonation-for-alleged-sex.html

Oracle faces possible class-action lawsuit over gender pay discrimination

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/10/02/oracle-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit-orcl-goog.html

The High Court rendered an opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The bottom line is unless the employer can show it is unduly burdensome to accommodate a religious practice, it must accommodate the person even if it has a mandatory dress code or other neutrally-applied policy. The employer is required to do so if the person asks for the accommodation or even if the employer suspects the person may need one.

Abercrombie did not hire a Muslim woman because her headscarf violated their “Look Policy.” The policy, which is described as “East Coast collegiate or preppy style,” prohibits the wearing of “caps” (an undefined term in the policy) as too informal for their image. The woman applied for a job at one of the stores. The assistant manager of the store interviewed and conditionally approved her for the job. Yet, the headscarf she wore to the interview indicated to the manager that hiring her would be a violation of their “Look Policy.” Although the woman never asked for a religious accommodation, the assistant manager assumed that she would need one if hired and deferred to the district manager. The district manager thought the scarf “would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise,” and directed the assistant manager not to hire the woman.

The EEOC sued on the woman’s behalf claiming Abercrombie’s action violated Title VII and won a $20,000 judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment, ruling an “employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.”

Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.’ §2000e–2(a)(1).” Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [] an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

There are two ways to bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: one is for a disparate- treatment (or intentional-discrimination), and the other, disparate-impact of otherwise facially neutral policies. The “intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.” Disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is plain: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

The Court ruled: “An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

Under the ruling, a prospective applicant is not always required, as the Tenth Circuit held, to request an accommodation from an employer. Employers that are aware or believe an accommodation is needed and are motivated to fire or not to hire someone based on that accommodation also violate the statute. As Justice Alito stated in his concurrence, however, if it is unduly burdensome to require the accommodation, then there is no violation.

But Justice Thomas in his dissent was concerned about a broad reading of the words “because of such religious practice” in that it could sweep up an employer’s policy that applies indiscriminately to everyone, yet happens to be at odds with an employee’s religious practice. He gives the following example:

Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim appli- cant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment ‘because of’ the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment ‘because of’ a practice that happens to be religious in nature.

Justice Thomas reasoned that under a broad reading employers with no discriminatory motive would be punished because they had no knowledge of every aspect of an employee’s religious practice. It would undermine the intent element of disparate treatment and make the employer strictly liable for its conduct. Citing precedent, Justice Thomas explained “discriminatory purpose” as “‘the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination” that “demands ‘more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’”

He recognized refusal to accommodate can be discriminatory where an employer does not make a policy exception for someone for religious purposes involving a store policy that is applied to everyone, when at the same time makes the same allowance for someone of another religion or some secular practice. Yet, he explained,”merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably than others.’” Under the majority’s view “mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination,” unless the employer produces evidence that the accommodation is unduly burdensome and persuades the court that it is so.

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

In this article, Ruby Tuesday is facing a civil rights lawsuit for discriminating against male job candidates. The government is suing on behalf of, Andrew Herrera, who worked at an Oregon Ruby Tuesday, and Joshua Bell, who worked at a Ruby Tuesday in Republic, Missouri. They were only allowed to work there for a temporary period of time. What makes the situation worse for Ruby Tuesday is they specifically had an internal job posting that stated only girls should apply to their restaurant. The law of discrimination based on gender states that, employers are prohibited from classifying jobs based on gender, unless employer can prove gender is essential to the job.

The government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Oregon. The lawsuit explains how the postings which were passed around to stores within nine states, and their content is a violation to the Equal Opportunity Employment laws from the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo stated, “It’s rare to see an explicit example of sex discrimination like Ruby Tuesday’s internal job announcement. . . . This suit is a cautionary tale to employers that sex-based employment decisions are rarely justified and are not consistent with good business judgment.” Everyone is entitled a fair chance when it comes to jobs, because one cannot just tell someone they cannot work somewhere without putting them up to the task. Both of the men say they were denied the opportunity to earn more money because they were not allowed to compete for the jobs.

In the end, Ruby Tuesday hired seven women and no men for the 2013 summer jobs. EEOC’s Seattle Field Office Director, Nancy Sienko said, “[Mr. Herrera] was shocked and angered that Ruby Tuesday would categorically exclude him and other male employees” from a lucrative job. The job announcement was distributed to restaurants located in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

The lawsuit does not indicate exactly how much in damages the men were seeking for the discrimination due to their gender.

Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Arleen Frias-Arias.

After reviewing an article posted December 16, 2014 by Madeline Boardman for Us Magazine, I found interesting the development of this case. A singer named Mitsou is suing singers and celebrities Beyoncé and Jay Z, for mismanagement and stealing. The Hungarian singer has a song called “Bajba, Bajba Pelem,” which allegedly Beyoncé and her team took from her song and sampled Mitsou’s vocals for the single “Drunken in Love.”

The interesting part is that Mitsou has never exactly signed papers that would permit anyone to use her voice for any type of use, including trade purposes. According to New York Post’s Page Six, the voice of Mitsou was manipulated for sexual erotica purposes without her permission. According to Mitsou her voice is featured in the overall song for about 1.5 minutes. This could be a huge problem for Jay-Z’s company and Beyoncé as an artist, because after hearing both sides and songs, there is a huge similarity between songs.

In my opinion, this case will require plenty of experts to prove the guilty actions of singer Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Even though the song only has a couple seconds of the actual voice of Mitsou, there are heavy accusations being made. Beyoncé has not yet commented on the situation but I think in this situation is where we bring in copyrights and hard evidence to prove statements.

In enforcing copyrights against the defendant there needs to be a letter of warning, enlisting the acts of infringements. Now since there were not any responses by the infringing party, legal actions are acceptable at this point. According to John Hornick of Finnegan.com, the business law rules most copyrights depend on is whether or not the copyright was even registered with the United States at the time of the defendants acts.

I believe Mitsou will have to file a copyright infringement lawsuit seeking compensatory harms. This situation is a very sensitive especially if Beyoncé is found liable; there could be over thousands of dollars probably billions returned to Mitsou for her work being unfairly taken without permission.

Arleen is a marketing and communication/TV production major at Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Arleen Frias-Arias.

After reviewing an article posted December 16, 2014 by Madeline Boardman for Us Magazine, I found interesting the development of this case. A singer named Mitsou is suing singers and celebrities Beyoncé and Jay Z, for mismanagement and stealing. The Hungarian singer has a song called “Bajba, Bajba Pelem,” which allegedly Beyoncé and her team took from her song and sampled Mitsou’s vocals for the single “Drunken in Love.”

The interesting part is that Mitsou has never exactly signed papers that would permit anyone to use her voice for any type of use, including trade purposes. According to New York Post’s Page Six, the voice of Mitsou was manipulated for sexual erotica purposes without her permission. According to Mitsou her voice is featured in the overall song for about 1.5 minutes. This could be a huge problem for Jay-Z’s company and Beyoncé as an artist, because after hearing both sides and songs, there is a huge similarity between songs.

In my opinion, this case will require plenty of experts to prove the guilty actions of singer Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Even though the song only has a couple seconds of the actual voice of Mitsou, there are heavy accusations being made. Beyoncé has not yet commented on the situation but I think in this situation is where we bring in copyrights and hard evidence to prove statements.

In enforcing copyrights against the defendant there needs to be a letter of warning, enlisting the acts of infringements. Now since there were not any responses by the infringing party, legal actions are acceptable at this point. According to John Hornick of Finnegan.com, the business law rules most copyrights depend on is whether or not the copyright was even registered with the United States at the time of the defendants acts.

I believe Mitsou will have to file a copyright infringement lawsuit seeking compensatory harms. This situation is a very sensitive especially if Beyoncé is found liable; there could be over thousands of dollars probably billions returned to Mitsou for her work being unfairly taken without permission.

Arleen is a marketing and communication/TV production major at Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Michael J Underkofler.

Immense controversy erupted during the election of 2016 with Donald J. Trump surrounding various issues. However, one of the biggest had to have been the various suits brought up against him regarding ample amounts of students enrolled at the infamous Trump University. “The suits contended that Trump University students had been cheated out of thousands of dollars in tuition through high-pressure sales techniques and false claims about what they would learn.” Trump and his lawyers agreed to a settlement with the student body, but one individual wanted more than just a large dollar amount.

Sherri Simpson, one of the students affected, tried objecting to the $25 million agreement to settle the fraudulent claims, saying she wants Donald tried on “criminal racketeering charges” and would not be satisfied until she received an apology. One of the lawyers, Patrick Coughlin, is quoted saying, “What she is looking for is an apology, and you can’t get that.” Ms. Simpson later responded by saying, “For him to go out there and say, well, ‘I didn’t do anything wrong,’ it’s disgusting.”

The federal judge overseeing the case, Gonzalo P. Curiel, ultimately denied the objection after deeming the amount of money more than fair. Countless other students who would have been deprived of the money if the objection had gone through, not to mention an indefinite timetable. In the article it even describes how the woman’s own lawyers were surprised and disappointed that Ms. Simpson would even bother to object to the settlement.

Michael is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Ysabel Capitan.

The optimal way to study business law is to see how it is applied in the real world by seeing the myriad of legal battles under the field.  Of course, in a naturally competitive world of corporate entities, lawsuits are common defense mechanism and tactic for upholding the success and integrity of a business.  Perhaps the quintessential legal battle in business law in the technology industry can hail from the lawsuit that Apple had set out against Microsoft in 1988. Technology and business savants in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would see their lives changed forever with this lawsuit after the latter accused the former of stealing their intellectual property.

Apple sued Microsoft in a copyright dispute for stealing their graphic user interface in their computing devices. The way a user runs a computer today is because of Steve Jobs’ and Apple’s foray into operating systems.  The symbols on the monitor, the mouse icon, the application list, it is because of Apple’s popularization of their operating system.  Bill Gates then made a similar system that we all know as Windows for Microsoft computers by using his own set of icons.  For example, instead of calling them “applications” on a Macintosh computer, Bill Gates called it a “program” to differentiate it just enough on Windows.  Apple, who was infuriated over their work being plagiarized, decided to take matters into court with a lawsuit. According to the New York Times in 1988, “Hoping to protect a key selling point of its Macintosh, Apple Computer Inc. filed a copyright-infringement suit against the Microsoft Corporation and the Hewlett-Packard Company.  Apple said software programs sold by the two companies infringed on copyrights Apple held for the way information is presented and controlled on Macintosh screens.“

Apple argued that while Microsoft did change things slightly, the overall premise was the same thing as copying. Microsoft cleverly argued that they would have to copy them entirely in order for this to be a copyright dispute. According to the Seattle Times, “Apple felt the question was too narrow. Attorney Edward Stead argued that a ‘substantial similarity’ standard taking into account small differences but considering overall resemblance – ‘look and feel’- should be applied. “We think it is important that innovative graphical computer works receive the protection to which they are entitled under the copyright law,” Stead said. But Microsoft attorney Bill Neukom countered, “In order to have a copyright infringement, you have to copy. And we didn’t copy.”

Microsoft did just enough to win the lawsuit and shows how tricky copyright law and the entire field of intellectual property is.  Because this was done in a time where computing was a brand new aspect, the courts believed that Microsoft changed enough in order for them to win the lawsuit. It would be interesting to see how a court ruling would have been done today in a time where technology has so clearly advanced to the public. Regardless, this court cases shows the inherent subjectivity of copyright law and how the entire field is truly in a gray area — and not in black or white.

Ysabel is a marketing and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019. 

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

On Oct. 30, 2014, Sembcorp Marine’s finance director Wee Sing Guan was sentenced to 39 months in prison for falsifying the accounts of the group’s Jurong Shipyard, Sembcorp’s wholly owned unit. The company lost “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of marked-to-market losses that Wee had incurred on foreign exchange and options trades positions he held with a host of banks, including OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), Societe Generale (SocGen) and Standard Chartered Bank.”

According to criminal law, falsifying account records is an unlawful action. Falsifying records can influence the stock market by making investors believe the company’s stock is worth it to buy. But after a company goes bankrupt, people who hold the stock will lose all their money. The offenses “carry a maximum penalty of an unspecified fine and a seven-year jail term, for each charge.”

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.