Copyright and fictional adaptation in "The Da Vinci Code"

Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" did not violate the copyright and other rights of others in his story line regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This is because it was a fiction story even though it used a true story to explain a very vided imagination of the author.

From there, if Brown claimed wrote the Bible, that would be violating the copyright laws due to the fact he did not it. Furthermore, there is not a passage in the Bible that says Jesus married Mary. Due to that fact, the author certainly did not violate any copyright laws.

First of all, I don't think anyone, even people who think "The Da Vinci Code" is the best book they've ever read (i.e., people who haven't read any other books since high school), believe it is a work of non-fiction. Yes, it mixes some true history with some speculation and flat-out imagination, but it is ultimately just a novel. I think even the stupidest of readers understand that it is not meant to supersede the Bible (Eternal Reward: $10,000).

Question

Abbott's management appropriately balanced social responsibility with fiduciary duty with respect to Kaletra and enforcing its patent rights in Thailand. People believe drugs should be made readily available in this circumstance. People also think that the drug companies can still make a large profit from all of the other drugs offered for other needs, and therefore can afford to help out human kind. When there is a disease that can be considered an epidemic then it is necessary to do everything possible to contain the epidemic. And since it is now possible to minimize the effects of the disease with drugs then it should be done. Along with educating people about the disease and how it is spread. Companies should sell the drugs at a lower price, which should be required by law, considering this illness is not curable. The company tried to show social responsibility to their by cutting their prices. However, the prices were still too high for patients because Thailand consists of poor communities. The unfortunate part when the Trade Agreement was sign, the only could go down so far without violating the contract, which was standard for most companies. Furthermore, the company showed their social responsibility to patients within the legal agreement.

In 1994, however, the drug makers, with other research-intensive businesses, lobbied hard and successfully for the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which made it harder to move from costly brand-name drugs to cheap generics. The agreement protected new-drug monopolies for 20 years or more. This meant no low-priced generic for Kaletra. The pact locked in Abbott as its sole supplier, and Abbott set prices for the world. Under pressure from activists, Abbott and other companies cut prices for key AIDS drugs in poorer nations. In Guatemala and Thailand, the new Kaletra costs $2,200 per patient per year, plus taxes and fees -- a fraction of the more than $8,000 it costs in the United States. In poorer Nigeria, the official price was $500 a year (CRIMES and CORRUPTION of the NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS 2007).

Question 3 crust-less peanut butter and jelly (PBJ) sandwich be patentable does not offer an opportunity for patent reform. "In 1999, United States Patent 6,004,596 was issued to Len Kretchman and David Gesked. This patent disclosed an improved crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich. What? This patent has been widely ridiculed in the media as an example of something that should never have been granted a patent. Nonetheless, the J.M. Smucker Company ("Smucker's") licensed the patent, and introduced the "Uncrustables™" brand of frozen no crust sandwiches. The brand was an instant success, and Smucker's, according to their website, invested close to $20 million to start up a factory in Scottsville, Kentucky to produce the product. In 2005, Smucker's sold $60 million worth of "Uncrustables™. The trouble started when Smucker's began sending out cease and desist letters to enforce their purported intellectual property rights. In 2001, Albie's Food, Inc., a small grocery and caterer in Gaylord, Michigan, received such a cease and desist letter. Instead of rolling over on their crust, Albie's took the matter to federal court and further filed a request for ex-parte reexamination with the USPTO. After extensive reexamination proceedings where the claims of the PB&J patent were rejected, amended, rejected again and appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the BPAI reversed the examiner's rejections but found new reasons for rejection. A quick look at the public file history in Public PAIR shows that a Notice of Intent to issue an ex-parte reexamination certificate was mailed on December 8, 2006, which shows that all pending claims have been cancelled" (Gunderman and Hammond 2007). From there, the investments should be backed by a solid intellectual property foundation. If there is a piece of prior art that is similar to an issued patent, it may even make sense to request reexamination of the patent.

Question

Home Depot's 2006 Annual Shareholders Meeting taught the business community about corporate governance. Corporate governance enforces that in order to be ethical, CEO's should be aware on how employees should be treated since he should be required to treat employees as a partner in his business. From there, there, he should use Emotional Intelligence, which is a theory that managers and CEO's understand their employees emotions. This helps them to communicate effectively and it makes the employees feel they are on the page. This approach generated loyalty and challenged the employees to make the business a success. Each employee should be offered stock options and given a portion of the profits as an incentive to keep working toward higher customer satisfaction. Motivation and communication are additional ways the CEO could create happy employees. Challenging employees allows him or her to be creative and generate new ideas or product lines that will increase sales and/or customer satisfaction. Listening to employees opinions is vital to success. The people who work the frontline of any business will have ideas on how to better the processes.

The Home Depot strives to be the employer, retailer, investment, and neighbor of choice in the home improvement industry. Corporate governance is part of our culture and is founded on our daily commitment to living values and principles that recognize our ethical obligations to our shareholders, associates (employees), customers, suppliers, and the communities in which we operate. We understand our responsibility to behave ethically, to understand the impact we have on people and communities and to fairly consider the interests of a broad base of constituencies (Corporate Governance).

Question

For the death of Milena Del Valle in the Big Dig tunnel, Powers Fasteners, the maker of the epoxy that held up heavy ceiling panels should be held responsible because they were neglectful since they sold product that was very weak and could support the ceiling panels.

Powers Fasteners, the maker of the epoxy that held up heavy ceiling panels, this week reached the first settlement with the family but is not the most responsible party in the death of Milena Del Valle, lawyers for the family and Powers said. The firm's $6 million settlement could be followed by further substantial monetary awards from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or a dozen-plus other companies, they said. Some companies named in lawsuits in the case were less responsible for the accident than Powers, and some were more, the lawyers alleged. "We certainly believe that there are others who are more responsible and more culpable" than Powers Fasteners, said Jeffrey a. Denner, a lawyer for Del Valle's husband, Angel Del Valle. "There's a lot of responsibility to go around' (Moskowitz 2007).

Question

The antitrust authorities should permit Microsoft to merge with Yahoo because it will be more profitable in the end. This is due to the fact that Microsoft is giant and can make any situation benefit themselves and others. "Antitrust rules evolved from very distinct policy traditions in the United States and Europe. Americans are fond of protecting competition, not competitors, while Europeans are much more comfortable engineering what markets should look like. Microsoft is not the first American company to run afoul of European antitrust regulators, and it will not be the last. GE and Honeywell, as well as Sprint and MCI, had merger problems in Europe, and Apple has been making the rounds of the European judicial circuit over its iTunes business practices. More recently, the European Commission has set its sights on Intel, spurred on by complaints from rival American chipmaker AMD.

In the end, consumers bear the costs of such tinkering, propping up firms that would otherwise not stay in business, and surrendering to regulators important decisions about what they are looking for in new products. This approach diminishes innovation for the sake of protecting big business, leaving consumers holding the bag. American antitrust laws focus almost exclusively on consumer welfare; if there is no demonstration of consumer harm, there is no antitrust violation. Competitors may fall in the creative destruction that is the marketplace, but as long as there is no consumer harm, companies are free to adapt their products to meet emerging needs of their customers"(Armey 2007) Furthermore, it does not seem this merger will cost the consumer any harm, which is what Europe is worried about.

Question

Amaani Lyle was not sexually harassed on the set of the television show called "Friends." "The Appeals Court determined that the writers' behaviors, although inappropriate in many workplaces, were required for their jobs. The Appeals Court found that "creative necessity" should be included in the "totality of circumstances" considered as part of the determination of whether sexual harassment occurred. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court found that: "Based on the totality of the undisputed circumstances, particularly the fact the 'Friends' production was a creative workplace focused on generating scripts for an adult-oriented comedy show featuring sexual themes...we find no reasonable trier of fact could conclude these particular comments were severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a work environment that was hostile" (Friends' getting too friendly 2007). Even though the behavior was not necessary, it was not sexual harassment because it was a creative environment that discussed adult content. Regardless if she was uncomfortable, the discussion was not directed to her, therefore she had no case.