MGMT533 Full Course

MGMT533 module 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6 Discussion

dq 1

1.4. - Assignment: Web Search - U.S. Code - Aviation/Aeronautics

18 18 unread replies. 26 26 replies.

Using your Web browser, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (the legislative page of the Library of Congress site) and then answer the following questions:

What Title, and Subtitle, of the U.S. Code covers aviation legislation?

Which part of that Title and Subtitle deal with safety concerns?

Which section specifically deals with airman certificate amendment, modification, suspension, and revocation?

Finally, see if you can find the earliest underlying Public Law (Pub. L.) listed as a source for this provision, and what year was that law enacted?

Then, using your Web browser, go to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and address the following questions/issues:

What Title of the Code of Federal Regulations deals with aeronautics?

What section specifically deals with airman certificate action (i.e., amending, suspending or revoking thereof)?

Finally, see if you can discover the date this regulation was last amended and the Federal ter (FR) citation for that amendment?

You are not required to reply to your classmate's post(s), but it is strongly encouraged.

Please Review the Project/Activity Rubric. It will be used to evaluate the activity.

dq 2

1.5 - Assignment: Web Search - U.S. Code - Title 28, Sections 1331 and 1332

18 18 unread replies. 23 23 replies.

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to review 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (i.e., title 28, section 1331) and 1332 (i.e., title 28, section 1332) and address the following questions/issues:

With what do these two sections deal?

At any time has there existed a minimum “cost” requirement contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 similar to that contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332? If so, what was/were the cost(s), and when was this requirement eliminated?

When was/were this/these eliminated?

What provision changed the minimum “costs” required in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) to the present >$75,000?

You are not required to reply to your classmate's post(s), but it is strongly encouraged.

dq 3

1.6 - Discussion: Module 1 Questions

42 42 unread replies. 94 94 replies.

Follow the Module Discussion Questions Instructions on the Module Discussion Questions Instructions page and select and post your responses to at least two (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options in the forum.

Choose from the following list:

1-1: Jennings text, p. 14, Ethical Issues

1-2: Jennings text, p. 24, Questions and Problems, #6

1-3: Jennings text, p. 30, Consider

1-4: Jennings text, p. 31, Ethical Issues

1-5: Jennings text, p. 70, Questions and Problems, #9

1-6: Jennings text, pp. 97-98, Questions and Problems, #3

1-7: Jennings text, p. 98, Questions and Problems, #9

1-8: Jennings text, pp. 98-99, Questions and Problems, #10

1-9: Jennings text, p. 133, Questions and Problems, #5

1-10: Jennings text, p. 133, Questions and Problems, #6

(Note: Unless designated otherwise, if more than one question is posed in a selection, for example in the “ethical issues,” on p. 14, then you are expected to answer each/all of the questions therein.)

MGMT533 module 2.5 Discussion

2.5 - Discussion: Module 2 Questions

5050 unread replies.8181 replies.

Following the instructions posted In Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo(2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options. Choose from:

• 2-1 - Jennings text, p. 153, Consider
• 2-2 - Jennings text, p. 157, Ethical Issues
• 2-3 - Jennings text, p. 169, Consider
• 2-4 - Jennings text, p. 180, Ethical Issues
• 2-5 - Jennings text, p. 181 Ethical Issues
• 2-6 - Jennings text, p. 202, Ethical Issues
• 2-7 - Jennings text, p. 243, Consider
• 2-8 - Jennings text, p. 260, Ethical Issues
• 2-9 - Jennings text, pp. 262-263, Consider
• 2-10 - Jennings text, p. 274, Questions and Problems #9

Remember to provide well thought-out replies to at leasttwo (2) of your classmates' submissions.

MGMT533 module 3.5 Discussion

3.5 - Discussion: Module 3 Questions

3232 unread replies.7373 replies.

Following the instructions in Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options in the corresponding Discussion Board Forum. Choose from:

• 3-1 Jennings text, p. 279, Consider (top of the page)
• 3-2 Jennings text, p. 295, Consider
• 3-3 Jennings text, p. 302, Consider
• 3-4 Jennings text, p. 304, Questions and Problems #3
• 3-5 Jennings text, p. 333, Questions and Problems #7
• 3-6 Jennings text, p. 334, Questions and Problems #10
• 3-7 Jennings text, p. 461, Consider (bottom of page)
• 3-8 Jennings text, p. 478, Ethical Issues
• 3-9 Jennings text, p. 481, Questions and Problems, #5
• 3-10 Jennings text, p. 481, Questions and Problems, #7

MGMT533 module 4.4 Discussion

4.4 - Discussion: Module 4 Questions

3434 unread replies.8181 replies.

Following the instructions in Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options in the corresponding Discussion Board Forum. Choose from:

• 4-1 Jennings text, p. 386, Consider
• 4-2 Jennings text, pp. 388-389, Consider
• 4-3 Jennings text, p. 396, Consider (top of page)
• 4-4 Jennings text, p. 396, Consider (bottom of page)
• 4-5 Jennings text, p. 405
• 4-6 Jennings text, p. 418, Consider
• 4-7 Jennings text, pp. 429, Consider
• 4-8 Jennings text, pp. 440, Consider
• 4-9 Jennings text, p. 444, Questions and Problems, #7
• 4-10 Jennings text, p. 445, Questions and Problems, #10

MGMT533 module 5.4 Discussion

5.4 - Discussion: Intellectual Property Protections

4242 unread replies.7272 replies.

Following the instructions posted In Module 1, select and post your responses to at least two (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options. Choose from:

• 5-1 Jennings text, p. 494, Ethical Issues
• 5-2 Jennings text, p. 502, Consider
• 5-3 Jennings text, p. 509, Consider
• 5-4 Jennings text, pp. 511-512, Questions and Problems, #1
• 5-5 Jennings text, p. 512, Questions and Problems, #2
• 5-6 Jennings text, p. 524, Consider
• 5-7 Jennings text, p. 528, Consider
• 5-8 Jennings text, p. 529, Ethical Issues
• 5-9 Jennings text, p. p. 535, Consider
• 5-10 Jennings text, p. 545, Questions and Problems, #3

(NOTE: Unless designated otherwise, if more than one question is posed in a selection, for example in the “ethical issues,” on p. 14, then you are expected to answer each/all of the questions therein.)

MGMT533 module 6.4 Discussion

6.4 - Discussion: Module 6 Questions

4040 unread replies.7474 replies.

Following the instructions in Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options in the corresponding Discussion Board Forum. Choose from:

• 6-1 Jennings text, p. 558, Consider (top of page)
• 6-2 Jennings text, 571, Consider
• 6-3 Jennings text, pp. 582-583, Questions and Problems, #3
• 6-4 Jennings text, p. 583, Questions and Problems, #4
• 6-5 Jennings text, p. 583, Questions and Problems #5
• 6-6 Jennings text, p. p. 592, Consider
• 6-7 Jennings text, p. 593, Consider
• 6-8 Jennings text, p. 595, Consider
• 6-9 Jennings text, p. 618, Consider
• 6-10 Jennings text, p. 623, Questions and Problems #2

MGMT533 module 7.4 Discussion

7.4 - Discussion: Module 7 Questions

2525 unread replies.102102 replies.

Following the instructions posted In Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options. Choose from:

• 7-1 Jennings text, p. 680, Consider
• 7-2 Jennings text, p. 693, ethical issues
• 7-3 Jennings text, pp. 702-703, Questions and Problems, #1
• 7-4 Jennings text, p. 703, Questions and Problems, #2
• 7-5 Jennings text, p. 703, Questions and Problems #4
• 7-6 Jennings text, p. 704, Questions and Problems #10
• 7-7 Jennings text, p. 730, ethical issues
• 7-8 Jennings text, p. 740, Questions and Problems, #5
• 7-9 Jennings text, p. 740, Questions and Problems, #6
• 7-10 Jennings text, pp. 740-741, Questions and Problems, #9

MGMT533 module 8.5 Discussion

8.5 - Discussion: Module 8 Questions

22 unread replies.6969 replies.

Following the instructions posted In Module 1, select and post your responses to at leasttwo (2) of the following assigned module discussion questions options. Choose from:

• 8-1 Jennings text, p. 343, Consider
• 8-2 Jennings text, p. 344, Consider
• 8-3 Jennings text, p. 364, Questions and Problems, #2
• 8-4 Jennings text, p. 364, Questions and Problems, #4
• 8-5 Jennings text, p. 220, Ethical Issues
• 8-6 Jennings text, p. 223, Consider
• 8-7 Jennings text, p. 224, Consider
• 8-8 Jennings text, p. 229, Ethical Issues
• 8-9 Jennings text, p. 232, Questions and Problems, #2
• 8-10 Jennings text, p. 233, Questions and Problems, #6

MGMT533 Module 2.3 Assignment Web Search - Civil Aviation Security Rules

2.3 - Assignment: Web Search - Civil Aviation Security Rules

12 12 unread replies. 14 14 replies.

The Jennings text (2016, p. 184) briefly describes the public comment period applicable to the administrative agency rulemaking process. Moreover, as the Emerson text states (2015, p. 41), “the federal Administrative Procedures Act [APA], may require that the agency …afford interested parties the opportunity to submit written or oral comments” [emphasis in original]. The Federal Aviation Administration used to have responsibility for aviation security, but this authority was transferred to the Transportation Security Administration in response to the activities on September 11, 2001. Any Notice of Proposed Rule Making, also required by the APA, is to include guidance on the comment period, i.e., those who might/may be affected by, or otherwise interested in, the proposed rule, are offered the opportunity to provide input to the agency regarding their thoughts on the proposed rule.

Using your Web browser:

Access http://www.gpo.gov (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

In the upper left of the page, click on the “FDsys: GPO’s Federal Digital System”.

Under the Browse heading, in the far right column of the webpage, select Federal ter.

In the column of years listed, click on “2002”.

Next, click on “February” under “2002”.

Then, click on “Friday, February 22” under “February”.

From here, you have two options:

Option 1:

Just above and to the right of the listing of departments/agencies, and to the right of “View Entire Issue,” click on either the “PDF” or “XML” link.

Finally, scroll down to page 8339.

Option 2: (more clicks, but this may be quicker and more direct to the pages you need)

Click on “Transportation Department” in the listing of departments/agencies.

Where it says “Civil Aviation Security Rules, Pages 8340-8384 [FR DOC # 02-4081]” to the right of that click on either the “PDF” or “Text” link.

Briefly address whether, when the rulemaking which transferred civil aviation authority from the FAA to the TSA, the above normal rulemaking guidelines were followed. If not, how did the process differ, e.g., was there a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, was there a comment period and was there any comment period before the rule became final (effective).

On another administrative matter, the Jennings text is generally accurate when it states “the first step in an appeal of an ALJ decision is not to a court but to the agency itself” (2015, p. 200). However, as you may have already begun to notice from your readings, there are frequent, if not always, exceptions (i.e., very few “absolutes”).

When the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was passed, it provided that appeals from airmen certificate actions, i.e., suspensions/revocations/etc., would be heard by the Civil Aeronautics Board. That is no longer the case. Who now possesses the appeal authority described above? Provide citations, i.e., both Title and Section for your answer in both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46110(a) or 49 C.F.R. 821.64(a)).

As you've already had some experience in this course with searching these resources (i.e., the U.S.C. and C.F.R.), how to get there will not be spelled out. Obviously, using the search strategy employed in Module 1 will be helpful. However, it should also be clear that this should not take a substantial amount of time (or angst), so if, after multiple efforts, you have been unsuccessful, inform the instructor of the specific search efforts/terms you have used, and the instructor can assist you.

Finally, according to the United States Code, is the appeal to the federal courts from the final agency decision on such an appealed decision possible, and if so, by whom? Again, also provide the citation.

Please view your classmate's responses to the activity. You are not required to respond but are strongly encouraged to reply to your peers.

MGMT533 Module 2.4 Assignment Web Search - US Code - Aircraft Piracy

2.4 - Assignment: Web Search - US Code - Aircraft Piracy

1212 unread replies.1414 replies.

While the vast majority of federal crimes are codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2381 [Treason], 18 U.S.C. § 871 [Threats against President and successors to the Presidency], 18 U.S.C. Chap. 25 [Counterfeiting and Forgery], and 18 U.S.C. Chap. 55 [Kidnapping], amongst many others), there are, as usual, exceptions. As we are emphasizing aviation, can you locate the U.S.C. statutory provision that defines “aircraft piracy,” commonly referred to as hijacking? Is it in Title 18? Provide the citation. Are potential penalties more severe if one commits an act of aircraft piracy inside or outside “special aircraft jurisdiction”, or are they identical? When was the law amended to include “conspiracy” language? Is this provision related to any international treaties regarding air piracy? If so, which one(s), and since when has it been binding on the U.S.?

MGMT533 Module 3.3 - Web Search Federal Tort Law

3.3 - Web Search: Federal Tort Law

7 7 unread replies. 16 16 replies.

With some relatively limited exceptions, e.g., the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (which relinquishes the otherwise sovereign immunity of the United States in certain instances, i.e., allowing U.S. citizens the ability, which they would otherwise not have, to sue the federal government for the negligent acts of its agents, for instance, the ability to sue the Federal Aviation Administration for allegedly negligent air traffic control errors, so here we’re talking about a different “sovereign immunity” doctrine than the international law one discussed in Jennings (2015, pp. 227-228) and Emerson (2015, p. 639), as the vast majority of tort law is state law (Emerson, 2015, p. 59), i.e., “[f]or torts, the applicable law is usually the law of the state where the injury occurs,” [emphasis in original], as opposed to federal law (as the language of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, effectively adopts state law, with certain specified exceptions, to determine whether or not the U.S. will be liable). However, there are still instances where Congress has acted to impact the way tort law functions. Under the ostensible belief that there were deficiencies/injustices in how state courts were processing/handling such class actions, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, making it easier for defendants to “remove” the action to federal court (i.e., although initially filed by a plaintiff in a state court, the proceedings thereafter, including any trial, would be conducted by/in a federal district court).

Using your Web browser, go to thomas.loc.gov (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Find out:

Who introduced this legislation (and when);

What the bill number was;

When (and by what vote), it passed the Senate and the House of Representatives;

When the President signed it; and

The Public Law Number for this bill/act.

Then find the citation for the U.S.C. segment that describes the procedure/requirements for the removal of class actions described above.

MGMT533 Module 3.4 - Web Search Tort Reforms

3.4 - Web Search: Tort Reforms

13 13 unread replies. 20 20 replies.

Consistent with what is stated in the Jennings text, “[a]though nearly all states have adopted some form of limitations in tort recover, these laws are a maze of laws differing from state to state and are in a fluid state of judicial review” (2015, p. 301). Those, as well as federal proposals/actions by Congress, frequently take a variety of forms, from capping exemplary/punitive damages, to shielding certain categories of industries/individuals from lawsuits, raising the burden of proof to a higher standard (e.g., “substantial evidence,” “clear and convincing evidence,” etc.) from normal civil court “preponderance of the evidence”’ standard, and/or requiring that there be “gross negligence” as opposed to just any “negligence, amongst other reform efforts.

Such attempts are by no means “new,” for in 1991 bill S. 640, entitled, “A bill to regulate interstate commerce by providing for a uniform product liability law, and for other purposes,” was introduced in the Senate on 13 March 1991 (with the related bill H.R. 3068 in the House of Representatives). The Summary of the bill stated that the provisions would “govern[] any product liability action against any manufacturer or product seller, on any theory, for harm caused by a product,” and “[s]upercede any inconsistent State law regarding recovery in such actions.” More specifically, the bill would have “limit[ed] punitive damages” and “require[ed] higher standards of proof for recovery of punitive damages,” in that the plaintiff would have to prove that the “harm suffered was the “result of conduct manifesting a manufacturer’s or product seller’s conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of those persons who might be harmed by a product,” which must be shown by a raised evidentiary standard, i.e., the “clear and convincing” standard, instead of the normal “preponderance of the evidence” standard, but explicitly precluded “a failure [by the manufacturer or seller] to exercise reasonable care in choosing among alternate product designs, formulations, instructions, or warnings [as being able to constitute] such conduct.” As to meeting government standards, the Summary stated that the punitive damages would be prohibited “against the manufacturer or seller of a medical device where: (the drug or device was subject to pre-market approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); or (2) the drug is generally recognized as safe and effective under conditions established by the FDA,” or “against a manufacturer [but not the “seller”] of an aircraft where: (1) the aircraft was subject to pre-market certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and (2) the manufacturer complied, after delivery, with FAA requirements and obligations with respect to continuing airworthiness.”

Using your Web browser:

Go to thomas.loc.gov (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

Provide an example, i.e., a citation (bill number) of another bill introduced in Congress after the 111th Congress (i.e., the 112th Congress or thereafter) of proposed tort reform and/or product liability (e.g., limiting punitive damage (other than one provided by any of your classmates, so there might be some incentive to do this one relatively early in the week, and, with bills sometimes having more than one reform, e.g., H.R. 3068, referenced above, only cite one of the reforms, to ensure everyone in class can cite one), in one or more of the categories listed above.

Give a brief description of what specifics the bill actually proposed.

Alternatively, and this is an opportunity to begin to delve into state law searches (as not just much of tort law, but also the majority of contract law, is state, rather than federal, law), you may provide an example, subsequent to 2009, of a state law effort to “reform” tort/product liability law (i.e., where a state legislature has proposed or passed legislation similar to any of those proposed in Congress), once more, other than one provided by any of your classmates, so there might be some incentive to do this one relatively early in the week). To this end, access to most state sites can be done using your browser and inputting “ state.??.us” and replacing the “ ??” with some two-letter state designator (e.g., “state.ak.co” (for Alaska), “state.me.us” (for Maine), and “state.vt.us” for Vermont), and then do a search using applicable terms, e.g., torts, product liability, punitive damages (or, alternatively, exemplary damages), etc.

Just in case you aren’t aware of them, the following two-letter state designators are available:

Two-letter State designatorsPreview the documentView in a new window (PDF)

You are not required to respond to your classmates, but is strongly encouraged that you respond to your peers.

MGMT533 module 4.3 - Web Search Contract Uniformity

4.3 - Web Search: Contract Uniformity

12 12 unread replies. 13 13 replies.

The initial paragraph in the Jennings text discussion under the heading “The Uniform Commercial Code” (2015, p. 370) details the how and why of the Uniform Commercial Code, i.e., previously, most contracts lacked uniformity because they fall within the purview of common law (which is really anything but “ common”) of the various states (as mentioned in one of Module 3's Web Search activities). As you might therefore expect, we will once again be turning to state laws in the interest of exposing you to the diversity of how states organize their laws and related Web resources.

Using your Web browser, and the methodology explained last week for trying to access state statutes, i.e. the “state.??.us” approach:

Select a state other than the one you used for Module 3's Web Search activity (and other than one provided by any of your classmates, so there might be some incentive to do this one relatively early in the week).

Provide its citation(s) that equate to the “Section 1-303. Course of Performance, Course of Dealing, And Usage of Trade” which define what those terms mean.

Two other aspects of that search should be clarified. First, the word “citation(s)” was purposefully used because I am aware that one or more states have divided these subjects into more than one section, so there may be more than one citation. Second, you will notice that this section had a different designation in the initial, as opposed to the revised, UCC. Therefore, don’t be surprised if you find a state’s provision in either Part 1 or Part 2 of the UCC.

Finally, the state’s UCC will most likely have a hierarchy of these provisions, i.e., course of dealing, course of performance, usage of trade. Provide the hierarchy, i.e., order of precedence, and the citation(s) for that order.

To reiterate from the instructions to one of the Module 3's Web Search activities, access to most state sites can be done using your browser and inputting “state.??.us” and replacing the “??” with some two-letter state designator (e.g., “state.ak.co” (for Alaska), “ state.me.us” (for Maine), and “state.vt.us” for Vermont), and then do a search using applicable terms.

Again, in case you aren’t aware of them, the two-letter state designators are available below.

Two-letter State DesignatorsPreview the documentView in a new window (PDF)

You are not required to respond to your classmates, but is strongly encouraged that you respond to your peers.

MGMT533 module 5.3 - Web Search Intellectual Property Protections

5.3 - Web Search: Intellectual Property Protections

1010 unread replies.1212 replies.

As you should be well aware from the text readings (i.e., Jennings, 2015, pp. 485-511, and Emerson, 2015, pp. 605-616), there are a number of ways which can afford protection to business intellectual property. As your interests may (and probably do) vary, what follows provides you the opportunity to research a topic from a variety of those intellectual property arenas. To help you appreciate where some of those protections may be found, as well as some similarities/differences amongst these, select one from among the various available options below (most all of which contain two separate questions, and there are enough options so there should not have to be any duplication, thereby meaning you are to submit one other than any posted by any of your classmates, so there might be some incentive to do this one relatively early in the week).

Patents:

What is the definition of the term “inventor,” and what was that definition before it was changed by the America Invents Act? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

What is the definition of the term “effective filing date” and what was that definition before it was changed by the America Invents Act? Provide the U.S. C. citation(s).

A condition for granting a patent is that it be “novel.” What is the definition of that condition in the Act, and are there exceptions (and, if so, what are they)? Provide the U.S.C citation(s).

A condition for granting a patent is that it be of a “non-obvious subject matter.” What is the definition in that provision Is provision made for inventions in outer space (and, if so, what is/are any such provision(s))? Provide the U.S. C. citation(s).

The Act permits a defense to infringement based on prior common use. Of what does that defense consist? Who bears the burden of proof? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Does the Act permit priority in patent examination for any certain technology(ies)? If so, what is/are it/they? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Can federally owned inventions be licensed? What is the disposition of rights in a patent for “Inventions made with federal assistance”? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Is it possible for a plaintiff in a patent infringement case to obtain an amount equivalent to a reasonable royalty? Can attorney’s fees be awarded/recovered in a patent infringement case? Is there an additional remedy for infringement of a design patent? Can patent infringement occur by states and/or their officials? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Copyrights:

What is the duration of a normal copyright (i.e., how long does it subsist) that was created on or after January 1, 1978. Does this vary for copyrights of anonymous and pseudonymous works (and, if so, how). Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

What is the duration of a copyright that was created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978. Is there an exception for phone records (and, if so, what is it)? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

What is the duration of a normal copyright in its first term which subsisted on January 1, 1978? What provision was made for termination rights for copyrights which had already expired? Provide the U.S. C. citation(s).

To protect a copyright, does it need to be registered (and, can it be registered)? Are works of the U.S. government copyrightable? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

In which section of the federal copyright laws does it generally grant exclusive right in copyrighted works? Does this exclusive right protection apply in the same way for computer programs? Provide the U.S. citation(s).

The “fair use” limitation on exclusive use in the federal copyright laws appears in which section? Are there limitations for archives and libraries (and, if so, where does it appear)? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Is it possible for a plaintiff in a copyright infringement case to obtain lost profits? Can attorney’s fees be awarded/recovered in a copyright infringement case?
Can a copyright violation be a criminal offense? Can copyright infringement occur by states and/or their officials? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Trademarks:

Where in federal law are the provisions for the trademark principal register found? Where in federal law are the provisions for service mark registration found? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

tration of a trademark is valid for what period of time (i.e., the duration)? Can the registration be renewed (and, if so, for how many times)? Provide the U.S.C. citations.

In what ways may a trademark owner provide notice of the trademark is registered with the Patent and Trademark Office? Are there circumstances under which the remedy for trademark infringement limited to an injunction? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

What are any defenses to the right to use the registered trademark being incontestable? What can a plaintiff request be done to infringing articles (e.g., counterfeit goods)? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Under what circumstances is a plaintiff in a trademark in infringement suit of a registered trademark entitles to lost profits? Can a plaintiff in a trademark infringement action be entitled to recover treble damages (for what type of infringement action)? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Are states and/or the federal government immune from suit for trademark violations? Does the U.S. keep a registry of trademarks from countries who are parties to international conventions to which the U.S. is, or becomes, a party?

International Convention Protections:

The U.S. federal law provisions implementing the Madrid Protocol for trademark protection are found where? The U.S. federal law provisions implementing the Hague Agreement Concerning International tration of Industrial Designs for patent protection are found where? Provide the U.S.C. citation(s).

Trade Secrets:

Find a state which has trade secret statutes, and then provide a brief synopsis of the protections/remedies it affords to/for trade secrets. Provide the state statutory citation(s). (NOTE: If one of your classmates has already posted for the state you have chosen, you will need to find and prepare the information for an alternate state.)

MGMT533 module 7.3 - Web Search: Aviation and the Disabled

7.3 - Web Search: Aviation and the Disabled

9 9 unread replies. 16 16 replies.

Both texts (Jennings, 2015, pp. 734-736, and Emerson, 2015, pp. 583-586) contain a significant discussion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with which you all probably already had some passing familiarity. What those text discussions do not raise is the fact that air carriers are explicitly omitted from ADA coverage. As passed on 26 July 1990, the ADA, P.L. 101-336, Title II, Public Services, Subtitle B, Actions Applicable to Public Transportation Provided by Public Entities Considered Discriminatory, Part I, Public Transportation other than by Aircraft or Certain Rail Operations, Section 221, Definitions, the term “designated public transportation” is defined to exclude “ transportation by aircraft,” codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12141(b).

However, lest you think that this omission permits discrimination in air transportation, the reason for this is that discrimination against the disabled in air transportation was already prohibited by the Air Carrier Access Act, P.L. 99-435, enacted on 2 October 1986.

Using the adept legal research skills you have thus far obtained, search the “U.S. Code,” (accessible within THOMAS (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., within the Library of Congress website), to find out where the provisions dealing with the ability of any air carrier to discriminate against disabled (or handicapped) individuals are located (HINT: Recall where the Transportation statutes are codified). You may need to try a variety of search words/terms, and you may have to examine a number of search result entries. If, after multiple (but not too many) efforts, you have been unsuccessful, inform the instructor of the specific search terms you have used, and the instructor can assist you.

Once you have found it, answer the following questions:

What is the citation?

When was the section amended?

How long did Congress give the Secretary of Transportation to implement a plan to provide assistance to air carriers?

Finally, search the Code of Federal Regulations for implementing regulations regarding discrimination on the basis of disability in air travel similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and, when you find it, provide that citation. (HINT: Again, recall which Title in the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to air transportation.) Here, as before, you may have to try a variety of search terms in the “Search Terms” box and examine a number of search results. Once again, if, after multiple efforts, you have been unsuccessful, inform the instructor of the specific search terms you have used, and the instructor can assist you.

MGMT533 module 8.3 - Web Search Environmental Law

8.3 - Web Search: Environmental Law

77 unread replies.1212 replies.

Much of the emphasis in the sphere of environmental law is on the federal statutes and regulations. However, as the Jennings text points out (2015, pp. 357-358), the states also play a vital role. For instance, there are areas of environmental “cooperation” (whether voluntary or imposed) between the federal and state governments. A primary example of this, mentioned in both texts (Jennings, 2015, pp. 340-341, and Emerson, 2015, pp. 554-555), are the state implementation plan programs required under the Clean Air Act, as amended.

Rather than have you delve into the myriad of state regulations themselves, you may scour the Code of Federal Regulations to find the state implementation plan for a state air implementation plan of your choice. When you have found it (one other than a state provided by any of your classmates, so there might be some incentive to do this one relatively early in the week), please provide the initial citation, including the Subpart, for where that state’s implementation plan begins in the Code of Federal Regulations, and then the date and Federal ter citation for when initial (some, as with the District of Columbia, which follows as an example, have more than one citation) approval status was granted for that plan. For example, using the District of Columbia, it would be 40 C.F.R., Part 52, Subpart J, § 52.470, with initial status approval on Dec. 6, 1973, § 52.472.

It is not required to respond to your classmates, but it is strongly encouraged.

Please Review the Project/Activity Rubric. It will be used to evaluate the activity.

MGMT533 module 8.4 - Web Search International Law and Aviation

8.4 - Web Search: International Law and Aviation

8 8 unread replies. 10 10 replies.

Finally, we come to international law. Although the texts provide a decent amount of information relating thereto, there is, aside from the passing reference made in Jennings (“The Warsaw Convention is a treaty that provides international law on the issues of liability for injuries to passengers and property during international air travel,” p. 21), pretty much a dearth of other information regarding international law as it relates to aviation.

First, before a nation can do much else regarding aviation, it must have sovereignty over its air space. This can be viewed as an inherent right of nationhood, but the international convention formally granting recognition of this fact was the Paris Convention (technically, it has other designations, but this is the most commonly used shorthand designation), signed 13 October 1919. Where in the U.S. Code does the United States claim such right to sovereignty and use of airspace?

Another major issue is that of air carrier liability. This matter was initially addressed in the Warsaw Convention, signed 12 October 1929. While this convention also addresses other issues (e.g., waybills, etc.), of primary interest here is the matter of liability of air carriers for injury/damage to people/baggage. The liability limit for personal injury/death in that agreement was to be 125,000 French francs, which equates to approximately how much in U.S. dollars (this is available in the Warsaw Convention, appearing in the information after the language in 49 U.S.C. § 40105)? Additionally, the only way for a passenger to avoid these liability limits (i.e., recover more than that set limit) would be if it could be proven that there had been “ willful misconduct” by the air carrier. In which article of the Warsaw Convention does this provision appear?

There is some confusion as to whether, and how much, of the Warsaw Convention the U.S. ratified. What is not uncertain is the fact that the U.S. was not happy with this liability limit amount and immediately began maneuvering to obtain increased liability amounts for U.S. citizens injured/killed in international air carrier occurrences (an interesting ethical discussion could be had here as to whether it is just/fair to deem U.S. citizens of intrinsically greater monetary value than those of other nations?). Although the 1955 Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention approximately doubled this liability amount, this increase was still deemed insufficient and the United States did not then ratify the Hague Protocol. Despite its inability to get other countries to accede to its wishes, eventually the U.S. was able, in 1966, to have many air carriers (as distinct from other countries/nations, and thus not a part of the Warsaw Convention) agree to the Montreal Agreement, whereby these air carriers agreed to a $75,000 value limit (or $58,000 exclusive of legal fees) on injuries/deaths for flights departing from/stopping in the U.S. Subsequently, in 1996, a Kuala Lumpur agreement, again between the air carriers and the U.S., waived the liability limits. Finally, a Montreal Protocol (here, once more between nations/countries), was signed on 28 May 1999.

This Montreal Protocol, in the words of then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, would:

"Completely eliminate the Warsaw Convention's limits on airlines' liability for death or injury to international passengers.

Allow lawsuits in cases of passenger deaths or injuries to be brought in the country of the passenger's principal and permanent residence.

Provide for liability regardless of the carrier's fault up to approximately $139,000, with no limit on recoveries above that amount for proven damages."

Answer this question: Did the U.S. Senate ratify or consent to this treaty, and, if so, when? Discuss. To find out, go to loc.gov (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Once there, in the column appearing on the left side click on the “ Treaties” option. Then search for the Montreal Protocol in aviation treaties.