Book Business Law Today Comprehensive Edition By Miller And

Book Business Law Todaycomprehensive Edition By Miller And Jentz

For this discussion, consider this hypothetical: You own an innovative development firm whose goal is to create engines for all types of machinery that operate without oil-based fuels. Within the past year, your firm created a lawn mower engine that runs on aloe vera juice. The engine has been proven to work in simulation tests. During the design and development phases of the "aloe" engine, you discovered strong evidence that one of your employees was attempting to steal the engine design plans. Because most states, including New Mexico, are "at will" employment states, you believed it was legal to terminate the employee for this attempted theft. She was let go with two weeks severance pay. You agreed to extend COBRA medical benefits to her.

While meeting with manufacturers about licensing the engine design plans to them, you learn from them that your ex-employee is posting entries on Internet blogs stating the "aloe" engine design is flawed. The ex-employee is also posting that the "aloe" engine idea was only concocted to swindle tree-hugging-big oil bashing investors out of their money. Based upon your reading of tort law in chapter 4, answer the following questions in letter format. You are writing the letter to your business partner who is in Bali testing the viscosity of guava nectar.

Paper For Above instruction

Dear Partner,

I hope this message finds you well amidst your exploration of guava nectar viscosity in Bali. I am writing to update you on a legal situation involving our firm's "aloe" engine project and to seek your advice on the appropriate next steps to protect our interests. Based on the principles of tort law covered in chapter 4, I will outline the potential causes of action against our former employee, the relevance of her online postings, and recommended actions to safeguard our company's innovations.

Potential Causes of Action Against the Ex-Employee

The primary legal claims we may have against the former employee revolve around intellectual property infringement, defamation, and interference with business relations. Firstly, considering she attempted to steal our design plans, we might pursue a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under applicable state laws, such as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA). To establish this, we must demonstrate that the design plans constitute trade secrets, that we took reasonable measures to maintain their confidentiality, and that the employee acquired or used this secret without authorization.

Our evidence includes internal communications, design documentation marked confidential, and the fact that we took precautions to safeguard our intellectual property during development. If the employee attempted to steal or misappropriate these plans, we could establish a breach of fiduciary duty or a violation of trade secret laws, which could result in injunctive relief and damages.

Secondly, regarding her online posts, if these statements are false and damaging—such as claiming the "aloe" engine is flawed or that the idea is a scam—we may have grounds for a defamation claim. To succeed, we must prove the statements are false, made negligently or maliciously, and damaging to our reputation. Our evidence would include the actual online posts, records of their dissemination, and expert analysis of their potentially defamatory nature.

Finally, there is potential for a claim of tortious interference with business relations if her false statements and actions interfere with our ability to license the engine or attract investors. Demonstrating that her conduct directly caused economic harm would be necessary for this claim.

Significance of Internet Posts in Legal Actions

The postings on the Internet are highly relevant because they constitute public statements that can cause significant reputational harm and influence our business dealings. Under tort law, defamation claims are particularly sensitive to the publication of false statements to third parties, which online posts clearly qualify as. Moreover, the internet's broad reach amplifies the potential damages; false claims published online can rapidly tarnish our credibility among potential licensees and investors.

In addition, if the posts contain false information maliciously intended to harm our business, they can heighten our argument for damages and injunctive relief. The digital nature of these posts means they are easily accessible and can have a lasting impact. Therefore, the fact that the employee posted online is crucial in establishing the scope and seriousness of potential legal claims.

Recommended Next Steps

I recommend that we immediately undertake a multi-pronged approach to protect our firm and our "aloe" engine design. First, we should consult with our legal counsel to send a cease-and-desist letter demanding the removal of the false online posts and asserting our trade secret rights and defamation claims. This preliminary step could halt further dissemination of harmful information.

Second, we should consider filing a defamation lawsuit if the posts are demonstrably false and damaging. These legal proceedings can secure an injunction against the employee to prevent further false statements and seek monetary damages for harm caused.

Third, we need to strengthen our intellectual property protections. This includes registering our patents and trade secrets, if not already done, and revising confidentiality agreements with employees to prevent future theft.

Furthermore, engaging in transparency by publicizing the validity and safety of the "aloe" engine—through press releases or industry disclosures—can help counteract the negative online claims and restore our reputation.

Expected Outcomes from Proposed Actions

If we follow these steps, I anticipate that we will effectively curtail the dissemination of false and damaging information, restore confidence among our stakeholders, and establish a legal record that supports future enforcement actions. The cease-and-desist letter and potential litigation may deter the employee from further online defamation and misappropriation.

Additionally, by enhancing our intellectual property protections, we will have a stronger legal basis to prevent similar incidents in the future. Public relations efforts can mitigate the effects of any lingering negative publicity, and the legal actions can act as a deterrent to others contemplating similar conduct.

In conclusion, it is critical that we act swiftly to enforce our rights and preserve the integrity of our innovative work. I will coordinate with our legal team to implement these recommendations and keep you informed of any developments.

Wishing you success in your endeavors and looking forward to your insights upon your return.

Best regards,

Your Name

References

• Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. (1995). American Law Institute.
• Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 1985. Uniform Law Commissioners.
• Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
• New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7.
• Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998).
• McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985).
• Kramer v. Jansen, 5 P.3d 246 (N.M. 2000).
• Chown, R. (2018). Intellectual Property Law in the Digital Age. Routledge.
• Nimmer on Copyright (2020). Matthew Bender & Company.
• Folsom, R.L. (2019). Tort Law and Legal Principles. Harvard University Press.