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.

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 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 Keith DeYoung.

On Thursday, March 23^rd, The Justice Department ended its antitrust lawsuit against AT&T’s DIRECTV with a settlement. In early November 2016, The Justice Department filed the lawsuit, after they claimed DIRECTV was in talks with three of its rivals, then AT&T, Charter Communications, and Cox Communications. These communications allegedly contained confidential information about whether or not to carry Sports Net LA, the sole provider of Dodger games. Time Warner Cable in a deal believed to be worth 8.35 million dollars, acquired the rights to distribute the channel, and thus the other companies would have to pay Time Warner Cable in order to provide it to their viewers. However, the other cable providers believed that Time Warner Cable was charging too much for its product, and thus did not buy the rights.

In the Justice Department’s view, they broke the law when they allegedly discussed that none of them would buy the channel, in order to make sure that each company would not lose customers if one company bought the channel and the others did not. However, DIRECTV claims they did not communicate with any other company, and reason that no one accepted the channel was solely due to its price.

By allegedly agreeing not to buy the sports channel amongst themselves, and ensuring none of them would lose viewers, the Justice Department argues that the companies were in fact violating antitrust law because they were sharing confidential information amongst themselves in order to seek financial gain and stability. Antitrust laws seek to prevent vast amounts of a certain market from being held in the hands of a few, as well as promotes competition, and an overall free marketplace. This prevents monopolies and total control over a market, which often ends in unfair prices for consumers. Although DIRECTV, AT&T, Charter Communications, and Cox Communications were four different companies at the time, by collaborating and making the agreement not to carry the sports channel, it can be argued that they resembled a trust by acting as a group, and thus prompted the Justice Department to file this suit. However, by settling the case, the Justice Department instead of taking severe legal action, gave AT&T’s DIRECTV an agreement that they do not illegally communicate with other companies over confidential matters.

Now that the case is settled, AT&T who owns DIRECTV can now legally focus on their pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Many are critical of this deal and similarly to antitrust law, claim that it is concentrating the power of this particular market into the hands of too few, and thus creating a monopoly. Hopefully, learning legal lessons from their antitrust case, AT&T and DIRECTV can successfully tread the thin line between strategic move, and totally and unethically taking over of an entire market.

Keith is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-settles-antitrust-claim-against-directv-1490312878

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-sues-directv-for-collusion-during-dodgers-tv-talks-1478105262

Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a prized right and the courts have protected this right to the fullest extent. As Americans in a democratic country, we have the power to speak our minds to ensure we can voice our political opinions and criticize government actions or policies. Thus, as citizens we hold great authority for which could either positively and or negatively influence our country’s future.

In today’s world, social media has made a strong precedence in our community and the functionality of our world. This includes Twitter, Instagram, Tumbler, and the heavy-weight, Facebook. These outlets of social media can be used by famous celebrities to endorse a product, or politicians to promote themselves and their campaigns. Social media is an outlet that can connect one with the world, therefore in essence is a huge stage to express oneself and one’s opinions.

It was on June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted many violent messages on Facebook (the Court raising implications of freedom of speech). However, prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, the man was convicted under a federal threat statue and sentenced to jail time of forty-four months. The man appealed this judgment, stating the government should have been required to prove he actually intended to make a threat. The Pennsylvania man argued he was exercising his freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. He also mentioned he was inspired by the artist Eminem and his lyrics for which is recited and had no intention to threaten anyone.

The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and stated, “It was not enough to convict the man based solely on the idea that a reasonable person would regard the communications as a threat” (Ariane de Vogue, CNN). What is important to take notice is the “reasonable person” standard was rejected by the Court. This is because the government needed to prove the defendant’s intent.

To conclude, the Pennsylvania man expressed himself on Facebook, whether it was crude to some or not, it did not uphold in court as a threat. This case is another example of how the Court will go out of its way to protect speech under the First Amendment.

Danielle is a business administration major with a concentration in management information and technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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 Marina Tesoriero.

On March 14, federal courts unsealed documents that question the safety of Monsanto’s lead product, Roundup weed killer. Monsanto’s products, including Roundup, are used everywhere, from commercial farms, to the seeds in your backyard. Previous research has found this product and other similar products to be reasonably safe to use. That was until recently, a federal court case in San Francisco disputed that “Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.”

Judge Vince Chhabria is ruling over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Roundup (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). Chhabria is also accountable for unsealing documents. In one unsealed email, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive allowed other company executives to hire academics to write their name on the research ghostwritten by Monsanto. Monsanto denied having scientists ghostwrite papers and insists glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

Documents attained by federal courts show emails show between Monsanto and federal officials that suggest, “Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributes to academics” (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). These emails also suggested that an officer at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made efforts to abolish negative reviews conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services about glyphosate. The documents also show that the safety assessment performed by the EPA caused disagreements within the agency itself. Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxenberg, and is also part of the litigation says, “There are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto, even the EPA has disagreements within the agency.” These actions leave users uneasy and concerned for their health.

Marina is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Marina Tesoriero.

On March 14, federal courts unsealed documents that question the safety of Monsanto’s lead product, Roundup weed killer. Monsanto’s products, including Roundup, are used everywhere, from commercial farms, to the seeds in your backyard. Previous research has found this product and other similar products to be reasonably safe to use. That was until recently, a federal court case in San Francisco disputed that “Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.”

Judge Vince Chhabria is ruling over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Roundup (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). Chhabria is also accountable for unsealing documents. In one unsealed email, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive allowed other company executives to hire academics to write their name on the research ghostwritten by Monsanto. Monsanto denied having scientists ghostwrite papers and insists glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

Documents attained by federal courts show emails show between Monsanto and federal officials that suggest, “Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributes to academics” (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). These emails also suggested that an officer at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made efforts to abolish negative reviews conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services about glyphosate. The documents also show that the safety assessment performed by the EPA caused disagreements within the agency itself. Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxenberg, and is also part of the litigation says, “There are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto, even the EPA has disagreements within the agency.” These actions leave users uneasy and concerned for their health.

Marina is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.