Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the summer of 2015, one of the world’s most known Japanese companies broke headlines as a top accounting scandal. Investigators found the company was overstating operating profits by at least 151.8 billion yen ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars) between the years of 2008 and 2014. Their accounting problems primarily began from company employees understating costs on long-term projects, according to an investigation by a former top prosecutor in Japan.

The investigation also cited issues with improperly valued inventory also as the cause for the enormous overstatement of operating profits. Details of the scandal emerged when an independent investigative panel released a report describing, “Toshiba CEOs put intense pressure on subordinates to meet sales targets after the 2008 global recession.” The investigative report revealed that the CEOs did not directly instruct anyone to cook the books but rather placed immense pressure on subordinates and waited for the corporate culture to turn out the results they wanted. The investigative panel also pointed out that the weak corporate governance and a poorly functioning system of internal controls at every level of the Toshiba conglomerate didn’t mitigate or stop the inappropriate behaviors. Internal controls in the finance division, the corporate auditing division, the risk management division, and in the securities disclosure committee were not functioning properly. The accounting misconduct began under CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in 2008 due to the global financial crisis that immensely lowered Toshiba’s profitability. It continued unabated under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Tanaka. Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka announced his resignation, in light of the scandal.

It has been four months since the scandal broke headlines and much new information has come to light. Since then, Toshiba has amended and restated those losses as to being more than $1.9 billion. As a consequence of the scandal, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has already designated Toshiba’s shares as “securities on alert” and fined the company $760,000 for “undermining the confidence of shareholders and investors.” In addition, Toshiba also faces the possibility of lawsuits from angry shareholders in Japan who have seen the company’s share price tumble.

Such action is already being taken in the United States, where an investor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toshiba in June. The Rosen Law Firm representing the plaintiff has called for other Toshiba shareholders to join the suit. Despite the consequences Toshiba is facing, the one burning question has yet to be solved. Who did this? How did all this came about? How could their fraud be maintained for so long, and who should take direct responsibility?

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Timothy O’Shea.

Tesla Motors, an automotive company in the Automotive Energy Storage industry, “who’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”(tesla.com) It “was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers in Silicon Valley who wanted to prove that electric cars could be better than gasoline-powered cars”(tesla.com). As of now, all Tesla Cars will be made with complete self-driving software. It is their belief that these self-driven vehicles will help to improve safety while also aiding in the transition to the world’s sustainability. However, Tesla’s autonomy options have had some challenges and have caused Tesla some trouble. Tesla has now faced a number of lawsuit’s regarding false advertising and marketing, more specifically false advertising and marketing of the car’s “Insane Mode”, a performance mode intended for fast acceleration, and also for the car’s autonomous mode.

After a few crashes, one of which was fatal, Tesla Motors has been receiving criticism for the way in which it chose to market and deploy its Autopilot driving-assist system. In the summer of 2016, Tesla was admittedly being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for its first reported fatality in a self-driving vehicle, while a second potential crash, involving the Autopilot feature, arose. Multiple cases have erected in China after Tesla crashes, with one resulting in fatality, a 23 year old driver whose “dashboard camera showed the car hitting a cleaning truck from behind while traveling on a highway in central Hebei province.”(forbes.com) Another fatal crash took place in Florida, where Joshua Brown, 40 year old supporter of Tesla, was hit by a tractor trailer which was undetected by neither driver nor autopilot. A final crash that raise concern against Tesla’s Autopilot software occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on July 1, where Albert Scaglione reportedly activated the self-driving feature prior to hitting the guard rail “off the right side of the roadway… crossed over the eastbound lanes and hit the concrete median.”

Amongst the many crashes and accusations, Tesla has continued to stand behind it’s autopilot saying that the crashes resulted from human error, rather than system error, and in most cases the opposing parties have not been able to prove otherwise. On a bold posting on its website, the company said “there is no car company in the world that cares more about safety than Tesla and our track record reflects that.”(usatoday.com) This statement resulted from the NHTSA’s disclosure it was further investigating the electric car company for the possibility of having their customers sign non-disclosure agreements that would impede reporting. With repeated complaints, the NHTSA continues to investigate the validity of Tesla motors vehicle safety but has not found any major problems at this time. From suspension concerns, to accusations of false advertising, to crashes and claims against the Autopilot feature, Tesla remains under consistent fire and has been on its toes ready to adapt and turn its feedback into more environmentally, economically, and logistically friendly features.

In more current news, Tesla has been running into some speed bumps in its growth and develop in Germany. The Federal Motor Transport Authority of Germany, has recently sent a request to Tesla asking them to stop advertising the “electric vehicles’ Autopilot function, claiming that this feature misleads drivers into unsafe inattention to the road.”(eetimes.com) Yhe claim released in late September, implies that Motor companies must refrain from using misleading terms like “auto-pilot”, “automated”, or “self-driving” if their cars do not possess the ability to control themselves completely independent of human involvement.” (eetimes.com) Tesla has responded saying its “Autopilot always requires that the driver remain engaged and ready to take over at any time.” (electrek.com)

Timothy O’Shea is an undecided business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

Tesla issues thorough response following harsh critique of Autopilot by German authorities

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330633

https://www.tesla.com/about

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougyoung/2016/09/19/tesla-takes-new-china-hit-with-driver-death-lawsuit/#37346299284f

Posted by Ali Paladino.

Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law.  The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.

The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”

I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.

Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.

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

Posted by Kirill Ivanov.

Tesla, a popular tech firm, is commonly known for its production of electronically-powered cars and batteries. Tesla Motors is among many ventures pioneered by Elon Musk, who has commanded the SpaceX programs as well as many other development projects. Tesla vehicles are not as popular as those produced by Honda or Toyota; while one may occasionally spot a Tesla model out on the road, sightings are few and far between. In order to expand their sales and drive more Tesla vehicles out onto the roads, Tesla Motors initiated a referral program. This referral program, which was based on rewarding customers for purchasing the company’s products, boasted many incentives for potential Tesla buyers as well as current owners.

According to Tesla Motors, anyone who ordered a brand new Tesla Model S before October 31st using a referral link from a current Tesla owner would get $1,000 off the listed purchase price. In return, the current owner providing the referral would receive a $1,000 voucher for a Tesla service center visit or a Tesla accessory. The offer went on to offer a $25,000 discount for a new Tesla Founder Series Model X, which is not available to the public, when a person provides ten referrals. Why was this program illegal? Tesla Motors simply created a way to thank its customers for building the Tesla community while simultaneously reeling in new customers to expand the existing community.

Unfortunately, Tesla’s referral program happened to violate a California State Law, which is quite ironic due to the fact that the company’s headquarters are located in Palo Alto, California. The company’s referral program violated the California Automobile Sales Finance Act, which states the following:

It is unlawful for any seller to induce or attempt to induce any person to enter into a contract subject to this chapter by offering a rebate, discount, commission, or other consideration, contingent upon the happening of a future event, on the condition that the buyer either sells, or gives information or assistance for the purpose leading to a sale by the seller of, the same or related goods.

As a result of its failure to comply with California State Laws, the Tesla Motors referral program did not attract the customers the company had hoped it would. Many businesses use referral programs to benefit loyal customers while simultaneously attracting new ones, but it is extremely important for such business to be aware of local laws. Ignorance on a company’s part can result in catastrophic legal damages, but lucky enough for Tesla the company only received a written warning from the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Kirill is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Source: 

Title: DMV warns Tesla it’s referral program is unlawful

Author: Mark Glover

Published: October 15, 2015

Link: ( http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article39309483.html )

Posted by Stanley Bukowski.

On August 6, 1991 was when the internet, also known as the “World Wide Web”, became available to the public. At that time, cyber-attacks ever occurring, never crossed anyone’s mind. Since the launch of the World Wide Web, cyber-attacks and IT threats continue to significantly grow each year. Even though they are known to be threats to business/organizations/firms/universities, they are most importantly a threat to individuals themselves. Even though business/organizations/firms/universities may lose financial resources from cyber- attacks, individuals lose their sense of total personal privacy. Personal Privacy is a concept that is cherished and treasured for four main reasons (Brey). The first reason is that privacy must be well-adjusted to national security and public order. Secondly, it is known to be a condition that is necessary for autonomy, which allows individuals to develop their own personality through personal experiences. Thirdly, privacy is known to be a safeguard to us which shields them from external threats of exclusion and/or blackmail. Lastly, it can also provide social value as well.

In the field of computer security, one will see that it is the process of being able to counteract and detect illegal usage of a computer. Computer security deals with having the ability to act as a safeguard by fighting off cybercriminals/identity thieves that are trying to get a hold of our personal resources that we have stored on our computers. Basically, the main goal for computer security professionals is to provide the protection that is needed for the valuable information and resources that are stored on our computers. The two types of computer security systems that exist are: System Security, which protects the software and hardware of a computer from mischievous programs and Information Security, which protects three different types of data such as availability, confidentiality, and integrity (Brey).

On June 11, 2017 the University of Virginia was silently blind-sided with a cyber-attack from China, where several attackers that operated together to successfully wire transfer $996,000 to what was first an unknown, untraceable location. This attack was successful due to the fact that there was a breach of information that leaked out information that the University of Virginia was upgrading their security system and also due to the fact that the thieves stole a computer from the university that belonged to the comptroller (U.VA). Once the thieves had a hold of this information and the computer, they implanted a virus into the university’s entire IT system, which allowed them to gain access to the University’s accounts at BB&T Bank. When the virus ultimately completed the job that it was created for, they were able to steal the universities online banking credentials, commencing them to successfully complete a single wire transfer to the Agricultural Bank of China.

To most people, this would set off a red flag, especially since it was a wire transfer from a United States university to a random, unheard of bank located in China. Not only should that have been a red flag, but a red flag should also have gone off seeing that the University of Virginia had no prior records in their transfer history to wire transfer money to the bank in China. Regardless of the fact that most universities in America purchase their school supplies from across seas, they tend to always use reputable banks, where they have several prior transactions in their transfer history. Even though there is a good chance that the university may retain most of its lost, they will not receive the entire amount that was stolen.

Believe it or not, most thieves today are known to be what we call “cyber hackers.” Thieves that commit these types of crimes are the individuals, co-workers, friends, family members that you would least likely expect to commit such a crime. Before we continue any further, the next four descriptions that are listed below, are the characteristics that management of business/organizations/firms/universities should look for when trying to identify a thief (Singleton).:

1. Reputable CharacterStudies show that you will never find a thief that disrupts the regular flow that happens daily at the working environment that they are a part of. These types of thieves will have the type of reputation at work where nothing ever seems to bother them. They will never portray or converse towards others or with others dishonest behavior and will never discuss their own personal financial issues. By doing so, management will never be suspicious that they would or ever think of stealing from the company.
2. Collaborate with AdministrationYou will find thieves to always be individuals that continually help their co-workers out with projects. The only plot twist is–they will only help them to the point where they will not be exposed to information that management could possibly use against them. Thieves use reverse psychology and have a relaxed personality when dealing with auditors. They tend to put on a poker face and give auditors everything they need in order for the auditors to be able to complete their jobs. Thieves believe in the fact that if they behave like they have nothing to hide, auditors/management will never become suspicious of them.
3. Work-a-holicsTaking a vacation from work will lead thieves down a one-way road, known as jail. If a thief were to take a vacation and the IRS/Auditor just happened to start an investigation while they were gone, will red flag them as the first source of why financial resources are missing. By not taking a vacation while the IRS/Auditor are conducting their investigation, there is a slimmer chance of the IRS/Auditor blaming them.
4. Norm: SecrecyThieves know that to successfully commit corporate fraud, they need to follow the norm of secrecy. Thieves know not tell anyone within or outside the company about the future corporate fraud they are about to commit. The percentages of successfully completing corporate fraud diminish the more individuals that the thief would inform. No matter if it is their best friend, wife, brother, etc., thieves know that to successfully complete the operation, they must act as an assassin, working silently alone.

I believe that business/organizations/firms/universities that implement Biometrics Security Systems will not completely bring cyber-attacks to an end, but it will certainly decrease them to the bare minimum because it is a form of access control. Biometric Security Systems are known to be as a technique of entry in which users/individuals are recognized based on their physical individualities, personal/behavioral/biological features. Having a wide variety of alternatives to choose from, business/organizations/firms/universities have a large selection pool that they may elect from to incorporate a the type of biometrics of their choice. For example, fingerprint, retinal, & palm scanners and face recognition are just a few of the types of biometrics available. Fingerprints are now being used as access controls for smartphones because in order to unlock their phone with their fingerprint, the fingerprint must be equivalent to the fingerprint that was previously stored on the smartphones system. This prevents thieves from getting their hands on private information that is on the device. The same exact notion can be applied to the corporate world. (Lombard0).

Information of the advancement of Biometrics is spreading amongst many individuals today and is becoming more of a topic of discussion due to its popularity due to it replacing passwords with login credentials. The most recent examples of biometrics security systems is now used when individuals take the GMATS. Before entering to take the standardized test, the proctor uses a palm vein reader upon entry to ensure that the exam is not being taken by a random individual and that it is being taken by individual who signed up for the standardized test.

Years ago it would cost a business/organizations/firms/universities tens of thousands of dollars to implement such a finger print scanner into their building but today it only costs about $200 dollars to have a finger print scanner implemented into a desktop, $2,200 for a retinal scanner to be implemented at limited access doors, and $250 for a palm scanner for each room for an employee to enter their office. For example, if the company has 5,000 employees:

A. 5,000 employees * $200 finger print scanner laptop = $1,000,000 B. 5,000 employees *$250 palm scanner entrance to office room = $1,250,000 C. 5 retinal scanners * $2,200 enter limited access door  = $11,000 D. 10,005 Installment fee for Scanners *$300 (avg of all three) = $3,001,500

E. Yearly Maintenance of all three Biometric Units = $25,000

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is trying to enforce the disclosure of media contracts from various media companies. These companies include widely recognized corporations such as Disney, CBS, Comcast, Time Warner, and many more. These highly established media corporations oppose the order because they affirm this action will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this month these media companies put in a request to the U.S court of appeals to stop the disclosure of their programing contracts. In response, the FCC stated that disclosure “’will aid the commission in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings.’”

Announced on November 14,2014, the media companies won the order to block the request made by the FCC. In connection, “a federal appeals court in Washington today said regulators reviewing the merger can’t immediately let third parties see the contracts.”

ZaAsia is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. is the first federal office to set up a unit to identify anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime.  The Conviction Integrity Unit will review cases where defendants offer new evidence that was not available at the original trial, such as DNA evidence, to prove their innocence.  Ronald Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney of the Washington office said in a statement, “As prosecutors, our goal is not to win convictions, but to do justice.”  Machen further said, “This new unit will work to uncover historical injustices and to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

The Conviction Integrity Unit follows similar ones established in state offices.  The modus for the creation of a separate unit to review these cases arises from five convictions that were vacated by the court, including that of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder based on hair evidence.  DNA testing made available in 2009 proved that he was innocent.

The office is working with defense lawyers and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a non-profit organization which fights wrongful convictions.  Over the last four-years, more than 2,000 files involving hair or fiber evidence have been reviewed by the FBI.

Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Katie Kim.

In the technology industry, two leading companies may be heading to the Supreme Court over the design of smartphones. There is no confirmation of whether or not the case will be accepted, but the Supreme Court has not taken a design patent in over a century.

A few weeks ago, Samsung agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages over a design patent but did not agree to it as part of a settlement. Apple took Samsung to court on the grounds that Samsung intentionally and knowingly copied Apple’s iPhone designs. Apple prides themselves on their innovation and when the threat of copycats infringe on their innovations it takes away from their profits. Apple submitted evidence that showed the evolution of the Samsung product increasingly resembled the Apple iPhone

At trial, Apple convinced the jury that some of the designs Samsung used on their smartphones, like the rounded rectangular corners and touch screen made of smaller icons, were taken from and patented by Apple.

On the other hand, Samsung argued that the law under design patents was misapplied. The law is meant to protect “ornamental” features that are not part of the products intended function. Samsung lawyers feel that this should have been made clear to the jury.

On Monday, Samsung filled an appeal to the Supreme Court. The company argues that the legal framework behind designed patents is flawed and out dated for the modern digital world. “The law was written for a time long before the smartphone was invented,” said Mark A. Lemley, a law professor and director of the Stanford University program in law, science and technology. If Samsung is left to stand with a sweeping rule against it then it will “lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies.”

Katie is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Farmers across the United States are filing suits against Syngenta. As stated in the article, “The lawsuits allege the biotechnology company’s genetically modified Agrisure Viptera and Duracade seeds contaminated US corn shipments, making them unacceptable for export to China.” China does not allow the importation of GMO products that it has not tested. In February of 2014, China learned that the corn shipments from the U.S. contained Viptera. Agrisure Viptera is a seed that is genetically modified (known as MIR162) to prevent damage to crops by earworms and cutworms. As a result, China has rejected corn imports from the U.S.

Over 1,800 suits have been filed. Lawsuits filed against Syngenta state that the company put seeds on the market even though there was no approval from foreign markets. This has led to some farms having great financial losses. Even farmers who do not use GMO seeds could be affected due to accidental contamination from other fields. Syngenta has tried to refute the lawsuits by stating that they are not responsible for protecting farmers from GMO seeds. This arguments were rejected in September by Judge Lungstrum, who refused to dismiss the suits.

It has been estimated by The National Grain and Feed Association that as of April 2014 almost $3.0 billion worth of losses were caused by Syngenta’s Agrisure Viptera MIT162 corn seed.

The first of the lawsuits are expected to go to trial in June 2017.

Melissa is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.