Posted by Natasha Dizon. 

Today, technology is very advanced with data that can be accessed and tampered with and though a simple passcode or a touch of a finger, your phone can be opened. Smartphones are something that everyone has these days. iPhones have iOS 8 and it can be hacked into through “backdoors.”

Recently, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik are two residents of California who are being investigated by the FBI. They are suspects for being in contact with the Islamic State. They are also suspects in assisting the shooting that took the lives of 14 innocent people and injuring 22 others. Farook was suspected of using his iPhone 5C to get in contact with other terrorists. Therefore, investigators want to tap into his phone, and unlock the data. The couple died in a shootout with the police. The FBI believes that they were part of terrorism.

In my opinion, yes I think that it is wrong to hack someone’s phone without their permission. Apple has a point where if they do it for them, the company would be pressured or expected to do the same for everyone. By doing that, the whole protection and lock screen code would be completely pointless. But in this certain circumstance, I would agree that the phone should be unlocked only because the lives of millions of people are in danger. If the people are being suspected of murder and terrorism, the right of privacy should not an option.

Natasha is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

All different opinions are being thrown around in this case between Apple and the Federal Government. Syed Farook’s phone is what the Federal Government wants to access, due to his previous activity. Farrook killed 14 people during the San Bernardino attack. His relations to ISIS is why the government wants to access his phone. The judge decided to side with Apple in not letting the Fed’s access Farrok’s phone. Apple’s argument not to unlock this phone is because it affects everyone who owns iPhones. “Apple’s lawyers argue that the government’s demands would ultimately make iPhones less safe”(Riley). Apple being able to unlock this phone would make it less safe because phones could fall into the wrong hands. Apple in the past has helped the law enforcement in a drug dealer case. In this case it is much more serious and dangerous for society. Judge James Orenstein says there is no way he can force Apple to hack and access the phone.

The Federal Government holding this phone and stressing about this case does not make sense. There has to be a way the government can hack into the phone themselves, but do not want to reveal that power. If they are able to do that without the help of Apple that could also put a lot of people in danger.

Both Apple and the Federal Government are making a lot of things difficult. Apple was faced with a big decision about whether they were going to help access Farrok’s phone. If Apple accesses the phone, it can help the government in many ways. Their view on it though is that it affects every iPhone owner. Apple’s power to access one phone will give the government access all. A lot of people would side with Apple for fear of their own privacy, but others will argue and say that it will benefit the government because there can be evidence leading to ISIS. Apple decision is probably what is best for the company. Apple wants to stay loyal to its customers and do not want to lose income. People knowing that Apple is able to unlock a phone so easy is where customers lose trust with the company.

In conclusion, both Apple and the Federal Government are stuck between what is morally right. Apple is doing what is best for the company, because if the technology falls into the wrong hands it will bring the company down. I believe the Federal Government must have someone who can find a way to access this phone., because they have the technology already and are looking for a means to protect that secret. They can listen in on anything. In my opinion Apple is not wrong for not wanting to unlock the phone, because they are only protecting the company.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Dana Domenick.

A four year old boy was riding in his aunt’s 1999 Jeep Cherokee when it was rear-ended in 2012. He was killed when the SUV burst into flames. The gas tank on this Jeep Cherokee model is located behind the rear axle which means when the truck is hit from behind, it will likely trigger an explosion. The location of the gas tank is a major flaw in the truck and caused over 75 deaths. Fiat Chrysler took action on this issue in 2013, by recalling over 1.56 million Jeep Cherokees manufactured from 1993-1998 (Associated Press).

Judge J. Kevin Chason in Decatur County, Georgia ordered $40 million in damages to the child’s family. Three fourths of the damages were given to the family for his death while the other portion was given for pain and suffering. Fiat Chrysler requested a new trial, claiming that the jury acted irrationally and their prejudice tainted the verdict. Their motion was denied by the judge (Associated Press).

I agree with the court’s decision. The engineers who built these Jeeps should have had enough knowledge to place the car’s parts at locations in which they were protected. Extensive road testing should have been conducted on every vehicle to play out every possible collision scenario to ensure that the quality of the vehicle met the highest efficiency and safety standards. This death, as well as the many others caused by this issue, could have been prevented had Fiat Chrysler took their road testing more seriously and therefore, the verdict was correct.

Dana is a psychology major with a legal studies in business minor at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business (minor), Class of 2017.

Posted by Aitana Robinson.

The battle between Spirit and Led Zeppelin continues in the copyright infringement case over “Stairway to Heaven.” This past July 8th the District Court of California- Western Division, found in favor of the defendants, Zeppelin.  On the 15th of March, Attorney Francis Malfoy filled in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals representing Michael Skidmore, the Spirit guitarist, in the hope that the appeals court will correct the mistakes of the trial court.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the accusation that Led Zeppelin copies a riff found on Spirit’s song “Taurus,” which proceeded “Stairway to Heaven.”  Skidmore’s appeal is based off the assumed error that “the trial court refused to let the jury hear the full and complete composition of ‘Taurus’ embodied in the sound recordings…”

Skidmore’s attorney complained about the court “making a series of erroneous instructions on the scope of copyright protection[,] . . . limiting plaintiff’s trial time to 10 hours violated due process and was not even close to an adequate about of time to try this case,” and finally, that “the court seriously erred when defining originality.”  Skidmore has asked the 9th Circuit court to reverse the verdict and call for a retrial.

Aitana is a communications major at the School of Communications and the Arts, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Joe Casey.

In the business world the line to remain ethical and make profit is thin. In the recent months Samsung has toed the line with the ethical standards of business due to their latest smartphone repeatedly catching fire all throughout the world. Samsung acting as swiftly as possible called for a quick recall of 2.5 million units of this phone however, the recall has gone anything but quick.

While Samsung seemed to be gaining ground on Apple in the smartphone business, they have produced their newest phone the Samsung Galaxy Note 7; the issue that has risen is that these phones are beyond unsafe and yet people still seem to be using them even after the initial recall. Due to the recall, Samsung has seemingly alleviated the possibility to be liable for any lawsuits that will come after the recall has been issued but the harm that was done prior to the recall has in estimate, “further dented Samsung’s reputation and shaved as much as $14 billion off its market value” (Times).  One of the many issues that face Samsung is that it seems they have wavered from government recall protocol and instead are trying to “save face” by venturing out on their own and advertising to bring the devices back for a change of battery when the issue is much more complex. The first recall while slow had seemed to stop the issue of their exploding phone as soon as October 1st.

Five days had passed since the recall seemed to fully become effective, until October 6^th when the first report of a replacement phone being defective hits the news. This stream picks back up and again Samsung is forced to stop producing the phone all together making it the largest smart phone recall to date. Finally, on October 11^th “Samsung announces it is stopping all sales of the phone while it investigates the problems.”(BBC). While Samsung at first was able to stay ethical, they decided to find an immediate solution due to the money they would lose and are now dealing with a larger problem all together.

This hit is only the beginning in the repercussions after this will be seen further in the court system yet their ethical standing to act as quickly as possible even though it went against the governments wishes on how to handle the recall was best for their business. Instead of staying unethical and ignoring the problem they chose to deal with it head on.

Joe is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37615496

Posted by Mike Bocchino.

Tom Brady has been accused of knowing about his team deflating footballs in the 2015 AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The footballs’ air pressure had been significantly reduced to a point where other players could tell the difference. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, investigated and suspended Brady for knowing about the tampering of the footballs. Brady fought the suspension in federal district court and his lawyers persuaded the judge. He ruled that Brady did not need to serve his suspension because it was an unfair punishment for just being accused of knowing about the deflation.

The commissioner then took the case to the court of appeals where they did not look at the facts of whether or not Brady deflated the ball, but rather whether or not Goodell was able to cast such a punishment on a player. They looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement. Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion, “We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.”

Basically they agree that the commissioner acted on the powers which he, the league, and the players union had all agreed upon in 2011. So those of you out there saying that Goodell has too much power, the players agreed to what he can and cannot do. Plus, the tampering of footballs is cheating and this is not the first time that Brady had been caught cheating, never mind countless times that he did not get caught. It was only a matter of time.

But overall, the court of appeals did a great job looking at whether or not Roger Goodell stepped over the line or acted within his range of duties and whether or not it was the best interest of the league, which it was.

Mike is business administration major with a concentration in finance at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Dalton Soffer.

Erin Andrews, a sportscaster who has worked for ESPN and currently for FOX, was recently awarded $55 million by a Nashville jury for her civil lawsuit against a Nashville, Tennessee hotel owner and her stalker Michael David Barrett. In 2008 Barrett used a hacksaw to tamper with Andrews’ peephole and secretly video taped her while she was undressed. The video was later released on the internet, and it turned in to a nightmare for Andrews. Her privacy was taken from her and she was publicly humiliated after the video surfaced. Andrews gave an emotional testimony and sent out an emotional post on twitter saying the support she has received throughout the whole process has helped her fight to hold those accountable for whose job it is to protect everyone’s security, safety, and privacy.

Andrews originally sought $75 million in her suit however the court settled for $20 million less than that. The jury found the stalker, Barrett, was 51% at fault and was ordered to pay out $28 million, while the West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million. The West End Hotel Partners has said that Barrett is solely responsible for his criminal actions.

In my opinion, I feel like the settlement amount was fair but I do not feel that it was properly divided between the guilty sides. Barrett was more at fault than 51%, I would say he was more like 75% at fault in this and should be ordered to pay more of the settlement.

Dalton is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Lauren Mudrick.

In April 2015, the Entertainment and Sports Performing Network (ESPN) filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against the telecommunications company, Verizon, for breaching a contract. Disney, who owns ESPN, claimed that Verizon made a unilateral decision, with little to no discussion with cable networks, when it released a new cable package called FiOS Custom TV.

The package took channels from basic cable and separated them into smaller specific categories. “ESPN claims that it would have most likely embraced this new innovative package if it were done in compliance with their contractual agreement.” Verizon claims that it is “within the company’s rights under the agreement to give customers these choices, and that this is what the customers want.” 21st Century Fox and NBC Universal joined ESPN in its disagreement with Verizon. These companies too claimed that the FiOS cable package violated their contracts.

A contract is a promise made between parties for which the law recognizes the performance of as a duty, or gives a remedy to the breach of. The said companies had in the past formed a contract with five basic elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality. With these five elements, the contract is valid unless it is declared voidable or unenforceable. If breached, the courts may rule an equitable remedy for the plaintiff. If Verizon really did go against any element of this contract, ESPN will “be made whole again” by a remedy due from Verizon.

Lauren is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

Chipotle is a company that has had a rough year due to people getting sick from eating at the popular fast-food chain. Steve Ells and Monty Moran, two executives who share the job as CEO, were affected when people started getting sick. Just before that outbreak, the company’s stock reached an all-time high. It was going for $758 a share, but once people started getting sick it was down to a little over $507 a share. Both Ells and Moran brought in around $13.8 million each, with the based salaries increasing by just over $100,000. The outbreak of this health crisis hurt Chipotle’s sales and had a huge impact on their image. For this to happen during a time where stocks and sales were up is tragic. The company did the right thing by temporarily closing their restaurants for the safety of society. The company had to sit down and figure out what was causing this health crisis.

This was the first time the company had a decrease since opening 10 years ago. The company took in only $68 million in profit, which reflected a 44% drop. Things like this are going to happen to companies. A company that is very successful has its down falls. Chipotle did the right thing by closing temporarily. Getting their image back from this crisis will be be tough. The focus for the company should be getting the trust back from their customers. We know this breakout was called E.coli, but the cause was never determined.

The best thing the company could do is advertise to get the trust back. The customers should always come first and their satisfaction should as well. The company still did fairly well even when the health issue broke out. This is an eye opening situation for all businesses, that even though there is a downfall they could always bounce back and get the customers trust back. Customers were hospitalized, and it is best that Chipotle is able to prevent that from happening again.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

In a case that has been around for over a decade, Richard Suen will meet in the Nevada Supreme Court for the second time with Las Vegas Sands. This case is about the Las Vegas Sands casino opening up a location in Macau, China. The argument is whether or not Suen had a major role in this transaction to be able to share in the profits that the Sands casino would make.

Macau is the world’s largest gaming market so Sands would be able to share in the profit and attempt to make money. In order to open a location there, Sands would have to have had a license authorized by the Chinese government and business officials. Suen was a Hong Kong businessman who was able to set up these relationships for Sands in order for them to get the license with a payment of $5 million and 2 percent of profits. This is where the case gets tricky as Sands argues that Suen did not have a major influence in setting up these relationships, therefore, the company owes him nothing. Suen argues that if it were not for him, then Sands would have had no chance of getting the Macau license and because of this, he wants money due to the service he did. Suen filed a lawsuit saying that Las Vegas Sands owes him $115 million. Going back to 2008, Suen won $43.8 million dollars and later in 2010, he won another $70 million. Now continuing to the present, Las Vegas Sands is fighting these awards again in the Supreme Court.

Sands’ biggest argument is that there is a lack of evidence in the previous trials. What has been proven, however, is that there were cases where Sands’ executives recognized Suen and the work that he did. It appears that Suen does have the right to receive some payment, but all of it is the real question. Las Vegas Sands was trying to expand their locations to one the biggest gaming area of the world, but because they disregarded someone who helped, they have been facing a long-run issue.

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

The teen clothing chain, Aeropostale, filed for Chapter 11 protection, claiming online and fast-fashion retailers are the cause. The company expects to emerge within six months as a leaner company. It will close 113 stores in the U.S. and all 41 stores located in Canada.

“Online retailers and fast-fashion retailers such as H&M, Forever 21 and Inditex’s Zara have posed a threat to traditional apparel retailers, but American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. have managed to turn around their businesses by controlling inventories and responding faster to changing fashion trends.”

The company may come out of this with restructured debt, but a long-term solution would require rethinking its brand.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

In a case that has been around for over a decade, Richard Suen will meet in the Nevada Supreme Court for the second time with Las Vegas Sands. This case is about the Las Vegas Sands casino opening up a location in Macau, China. The argument is whether or not Suen had a major role in this transaction to be able to share in the profits that the Sands casino would make.

Macau is the world’s largest gaming market so Sands would be able to share in the profit and attempt to make money. In order to open a location there, Sands would have to have had a license authorized by the Chinese government and business officials. Suen was a Hong Kong businessman who was able to set up these relationships for Sands in order for them to get the license with a payment of $5 million and 2 percent of profits. This is where the case gets tricky as Sands argues that Suen did not have a major influence in setting up these relationships, therefore, the company owes him nothing. Suen argues that if it were not for him, then Sands would have had no chance of getting the Macau license and because of this, he wants money due to the service he did. Suen filed a lawsuit saying that Las Vegas Sands owes him $115 million. Going back to 2008, Suen won $43.8 million dollars and later in 2010, he won another $70 million. Now continuing to the present, Las Vegas Sands is fighting these awards again in the Supreme Court.

Sands’ biggest argument is that there is a lack of evidence in the previous trials. What has been proven, however, is that there were cases where Sands’ executives recognized Suen and the work that he did. It appears that Suen does have the right to receive some payment, but all of it is the real question. Las Vegas Sands was trying to expand their locations to one the biggest gaming area of the world, but because they disregarded someone who helped, they have been facing a long-run issue.

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