Court strikes down D.C. handgun law

Helpful info on Patents (Ch. 10)

http://libraries.mit.edu/guides/types/patents/about.html

http://people.howstuffworks.com/patent.htm

http://allafrica.com/stories/200702070946.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

Alabama: Chelsea man shoots armed intruder to death after being tied

Posted on 03/01/2005 6:07:19 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
CHELSEA, Ala. - An armed, masked intruder was shot to death by a Chelsea man who managed to free himself after he was tied up and his wife held at gunpoint during a robbery in their home, Shelby County authorities said.
Sheriff Chris Curry said a female accomplice was arrested while attempting to flee the scene.
Sheriff's officers did not immediately release the name of the man who killed the intruder during the home invasion about 2 a.m. Sunday. The suspected burglar was identified as William Clint O'Shields, 25, of Chelsea.
O'Shields' alleged accomplice, Rebecca Lynn Cockerham, 20, was charged Monday with capital murder and robbery. She lived with O'Shields in Chelsea and indicated that the two were married, authorities said.
Investigators said O'Shields was a suspect in another home invasion robbery that occurred in Westover on Saturday in which a man in his 80s was tied up and several guns were taken.
Curry said the Chelsea homeowner and his wife were awakened by the sound of shattering glass as O'Shields broke a glass door to a side porch and entered their house.
After the homeowner was tied up, O'Shields took the man's wife to another part of the house and started taking electronics, jewelry and other items, the sheriff said.
O'Shields was in a different room when the homeowner broke free and got a pistol he had in his house.
Curry said the homeowner shot O'Shields when the intruder returned to the area where the homeowner had been tied.
"If you're in your house, your own home, you're going to have a lot of freedom to protect yourself, especially your wife, your family and property," said Shelby County District Attorney Robby Owens.

Think hard on how, whether you could use deadly force

By STEVE ROSE Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 10:07 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The state Senate recently passed a NRA bill that would expand the law that now allows Georgians to use deadly force in their homes and vehicles. This will spawn a lot of debate; some by people who take the time to look up some facts, but mostly from people dealing strictly from emotion and personal belief.
Sen. Regina Thomas of Savannah was quoted as saying the bill would increase the number of crimes in Georgia.
Crimes committed on the street in this area have already risen. Pedestrian robberies are up. The bad guys already have guns. They’re using them to commit the robberies and in some cases, even when the victim complies, they shoot them.
The proposed legislation is a clear indication that violent crimes are up and your chances of being caught in the middle are better than they were a few years ago. “Wrong place at the wrong time” can play a major role in a situation of deadly force. In such a situation, (such as on a sidewalk or parking lot, as the bill allows) having a weapon would give you the opportunity to save your own life. Your fate would not completely be in the hands of the bad guy.

Progress reported in bank robbery-bomb death case

(Applies to the Chapter 7. Criminal Law - Defenses - Duress

Saturday, February 17, 2007
Investigators are nearing the end of a three-year probe into the death of an Erie pizza deliveryman who was killed when a bomb strapped around his neck exploded shortly after a bank robbery.
Prosecutors and investigators met for three hours Friday with U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan to discuss the death of Brian Wells. New developments prompted the meeting, Buchanan said.
"We now believe we have a much better understanding of what happened on Aug. 28, 2003," Buchanan said. "I'm very encouraged by the information that has been collected."
Wells, 46, died as he sat handcuffed in a parking lot and surrounded by police, who stopped him minutes after he robbed a bank outside Erie. The collar bomb locked around his neck exploded while officers waited for a bomb squad.
No charges have been filed in Wells' death, but an unnamed law enforcement official has been quoted by the news media as saying indictments could come as soon as next month.
Buchanan would not say if the report was accurate. She said she is the only person who could make the decision as to whether to seek a grand jury indictment, adding that she has not told anyone whether she's made such a decision.
"I can't jeopardize this investigation, which is nearing an end, by making comments on what's been concluded and what hasn't been," Buchanan said. "Until a grand jury hears that testimony and determines there's probable cause, it would be improper to make that comment and I would not do that."
Buchanan promised to take action against the source of the story, should she learn that person's identity.
Buchanan would not say the case was solved, only that she expects it "will be completed promptly."
Wells' death has remained a mystery for so long, in part, because several people connected to the investigation have died in the past three years, Buchanan said. She would not say whether their deaths were related to the case, only that one of the "several" deaths was natural.
Investigators have spent years trying to determine whether Wells was a victim in the bank robbery plot or participated willingly. Buchanan declined to comment as to whether that question has been answered.
Wells left Mama Mia's Pizza-Ria about 2 p.m. the day of his death to deliver pizza to a remote location, which turned out to be an abandoned television tower. About 40 minutes later, he showed up at a PNC Bank branch outside Erie, handed a note to a teller and raised his shirt to show the bomb.
Wells was stopped by police two minutes after the robbery. A series of notes found in Wells' possession gave explicit details on how to rob the bank and survive the experience -- including instructions to go to three locations within a specified time in order to retrieve keys and a code to disarm the bomb.
"Alerting authorities, your company or anyone else will bring your death," a handwritten note read. "If we spot police vehicles or aircraft you will be killed."
A grand jury in Erie has heard testimony from numerous people, Buchanan said. She added that several more steps need to be taken before the investigation ends.
Jason Cato can be reached at jcato@tribweb.com or 412-

Privacy under attack, but does anybody care?

The Right of Privacy

Introduction

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

http://netsecurity.about.com/od/newsandeditorial1/a/aaprivacyrights_3.htm

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm

Apple, Beatles: 'We can work it out'. Trademark agreement ends litigation over Apple name, logos

SAN JOSE, Calif. - “We can work it out.”
That was the message that iPod maker Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ guardian Apple Corps Ltd. sent Monday in burying nearly three decades of trademark strife over the iconic apple logo and name.
Like the warring lovers striving for reconciliation in The Beatles’ 1965 hit tune, the two Apples agreed to quash a long-simmering rivalry and years of vicious legal battles between one of the world’s largest music sellers and one of history’s most beloved bands.

Campaign ranks among most costly in U.S.

spending spree of almost $1 million the last week of the campaign helped make the Alabama chief justice election the second most expensive judicial race in United States history, a national watchdog group said.
Sue Bell Cobb, the winner; Drayton Nabers Jr.; and Justice Tom Parker spent $7.7 million on the primary and general election. The race was second only to a $9.3 million Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington group that tracks the influence of money on judicial elections.
The final price tag for all five Alabama Supreme Court races was $12.4 million, the most among the 16 states with Supreme Court elections last year. Alabama's chief justice election was the most expensive judicial race in the nation in 2006.

State court to hear Exxon verdict appeal

MONTGOMERY - Attorneys for the state of Alabama and ExxonMobil Corp. plan to argue before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday in the appeal of a jury's verdict that Exxon owes the state $3.6 billion.
The two-hour hearing is scheduled to start at 9 a.m., more than 2½ years after Exxon appealed the verdict.
A Montgomery County jury in November 2003 found that Exxon violated lease contracts signed with the state that entitled the company to pump and sell natural gas from Mobile Bay. The jury said Exxon owed the state $102.8 million in additional royalties, plus interest, for gas Exxon pumped from the bay in 1993-2002.
The jury also imposed punitive damages of $11.8 billion on Exxon, finding the company committed fraud.
Montgomery County Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey in March 2004 reduced the punitive-damages award to $3.5 billion, for a total verdict of $3.6 billion, and Exxon appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Attorneys on both sides said they hoped the Supreme Court would rule on the case within two or three months of the hearing, but there's no guarantee that it will. There's also no guarantee that a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court would be final, since its decision might be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
David Boyd, one of Exxon's attorneys, said the company and the state disagree over how to interpret lease contracts, but that Exxon never committed fraud. No punitive damages could be awarded in a contract dispute under Alabama law without a finding of fraud.
"This case is a contract dispute masquerading as a fraud action," Boyd and other attorneys for Exxon wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court.
Boyd said Exxon never hid from the state that it interpreted the contracts to mean the company owed less in royalties than the state believed it did. He also said the state always intended to audit Exxon's production and payment records, and that Exxon knew that.
Boyd also said that, even if the court finds that Exxon was wrong on the contracts and that it did commit fraud, that $3.5 billion in punitive damages was too huge to be fair.
"It's an amount so astronomical as to be just mind-boggling," Boyd said.
He and other attorneys in their brief said the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has said that few punitive damage awards 10 times or more greater than actual damages would be viewed as fair, as satisfying the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process of law.
But Jere Beasley, one of the attorneys for the state, said the U.S. Supreme Court never has set a hard and fast rule against large punitive damage awards.
"There's no magic formula," Beasley said.
Noting that ExxonMobil reported earning profits of $39.5 billion last year, he said a verdict smaller than $3.6 billion wouldn't sting Exxon enough to change its behavior.
Beasley also disputed Boyd's view that Exxon never hid from the state its different interpretation of the lease contracts, and the royalties owed under them.
"We think the entire decision should be upheld," Beasley said.
One of the disagreements in interpretation of the contracts centers on the value of natural gas from Mobile Bay on which Exxon pays royalties to the state.
The state says Exxon must pay royalties on the value of gas sold from Exxon's Onshore Treating Facility in Theodore, which, among other things, removes hydrogen sulfide from the gas to make it marketable.
Exxon says that, when valuing the gas its sells, it can deduct the costs of transporting the natural gas from drilling platforms to the treating facility and of purifying the gas there.
Also, Exxon says it doesn't have to pay royalties to the state on gas it pumps from Mobile Bay and then burns to operate the treating facility. The state says Exxon must pay royalties on that gas, too.

Conviction in Coca Cola Trade Secrets Trial

A federal jury rejected a former Coca-Cola secretary's claim that she was duped by two ex-cons and convicted her Friday of conspiring to steal trade secrets from the world's largest beverage maker in an effort to sell them to rival Pepsi.

Joya Williams faces up to 10 years in prison. No sentencing date was immediately set.
The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for 11½ hours over three days. On Thursday, jurors told U.S. District Judge J. Owen Forrester they were "hung" and could not decide. Forrester told the jury to try again Friday.
Williams showed no visible reaction when the verdict was announced. She remains free on bond, pending sentencing. Her lawyer plans an appeal.
Williams was fired as a secretary to Coca-Cola's global brand director at the company's Atlanta headquarters after the allegations came to light.
The government said Williams stole confidential documents and samples of products that hadn't been launched from The Coca-Cola Co. and gave them to Ibrahim Dimson and Edmund Duhaney as part of a conspiracy to sell the items to Purchase, N.Y.-based PepsiCo Inc. for at least $1.5 million.
The conspiracy was foiled after Pepsi warned Atlanta-based Coca-Cola that it had received a letter in May 2006 offering Coca-Cola trade secrets to the "highest bidder." The FBI launched an undercover investigation and identified the letter writer as Dimson.
Dimson and Duhaney have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Duhaney testified during Williams' trial that Williams spearheaded the scheme. Dimson did not testify.
The government said Williams was deeply in debt, unhappy in her job and seeking a big payday, so she embarked on the scheme to steal trade secrets.
Defense lawyer Janice Singer urged jurors to use their common sense, and she argued that prosecutors did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Singer suggested that Dimson and Duhaney stole the documents and product samples from Williams without her knowledge and conspired to sell them to Pepsi behind her back. Williams testified earlier this week she left a key under her doormat for one of the co-defendants, perhaps explaining how they could have gotten into her home.
Singer also told jurors that Dimson and Duhaney are criminals and shouldn't be believed. The two served prison terms at the same time at a federal penitentiary in Montgomery, Ala. Duhaney served nearly five years of a seven-year sentence on a cocaine charge before being released in 2005; Dimson served less than one year of a two-year sentence on a bank fraud charge before his release in 2004.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak said during his closing argument Wednesday that Williams' key under the mat claim was one of many lies told by Williams.
During two days on the stand, Williams testified that she didn't steal anything from Coke, but rather took documents and product samples home to protect herself in case her boss questioned whether she was doing her job.
She also claimed that $4,000 in cash she deposited into her bank account in June 2006, just days after Dimson was given $30,000 in cash from an undercover FBI agent in exchange for Coke materials, came from a friend, not from Dimson.
But the friend, Clifton Carroll, testified Tuesday that Williams was lying; he said the most money he ever loaned her was $400, and that was after her July 5 arrest.
Williams' credibility was an issue for the jury to weigh during its deliberations.
After the verdict was announced, Singer said her client had been "prepared for the worst. She was ready for whatever the jury did."
"She's holding her own," Singer added. "She seems pretty strong right now."
Pak, the prosecutor, said, "We're happy with the verdict. It was the right verdict based on the evidence in the case."
He said it's too early to tell what sentence the government will recommend. He noted that under federal guidelines, the fact that Williams testified and denied involvement could weigh against her at sentencing.
Juror Rodney Brown said that when the jury broke Thursday after saying it was deadlocked, the members were split down the middle.
Asked whether Williams' credibility was an issue, he said, "I think there were some issues about how she represented herself."
Brown said the jurors found one piece of evidence particularly important: the wiretapped phone calls between Dimson and Duhaney, in which they discussed the scheme and how to split up the money they hoped to get from Pepsi among themselves and Williams.
U.S. Attorney David Nahmias told reporters after the verdict that Williams "misused her unique access" to confidential Coca-Cola documents "for personal profit."
The trial, including jury selection, lasted 2½ weeks.

Coca-Cola's Holy Grail

In a vault in the bowels of a SunTrust Bank in Atlanta lies one of the most sacred secrets in the business world: the 120-year-old formula for Coca-Cola. That is the one certainty about the mysterious recipe. Everything else surrounding it—the need for a vote by Coke's board of directors to open the vault, for example—may be urban legend. Attempts to confirm additional information with the Coca-Cola Co. are met with an obvious reply: "Well, then it wouldn't be a secret," says company spokeswoman Crystal Walker.
Myth or not, at least three people recently risked jail time to breach the company's air of mystery. Ibrahim Dimson, 30, and Edmund Duhaney, 43, could each face up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty last week in a plot to sell Coca-Cola trade secrets to Pepsi for $1.5 million. The men were co-conspirators in a scheme allegedly hatched by Joya Williams—a former administrative assistant at Coca-Cola's Atlanta headquarters. The trio's shenanigans fizzled when Pepsi alerted Coca-Cola, which then contacted the FBI. Williams, 41, who had worked at Coca-Cola for 14 months and maintains her innocence, is awaiting trial.

Sandra Day O’Connor on Postcourt Life

Sandra Day O'Connor left the high court a year ago. Now she's really busy. In a NEWSWEEK exclusive, she talks about stepping down, Iraq and caring for her ill husband.
By Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek

Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Walk down the hallway on the second floor of the Supreme Court, through the part of the massive marble building the public never gets to see, just past the chambers of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you might think you've stumbled into a gallery. The walls of the long corridor are lined with artwork: there's a Georgia O'Keeffe print, a photograph of a Navajo woman (taken by Barry Goldwater) and a framed editorial cartoon of Lady Justice celebrating the first woman named to the Supreme Court. Turn the corner, and you'll find that woman, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "It wouldn't fit in my chambers," she says, pointing at the collection. When she left the court last January, she had to turn over her spacious digs to her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito. But a year later, nestled in a cozy corner office, O'Connor is still hard at work.
After her surprise announcement in July 2005 that she was leaving the court, O'Connor seemed likely to follow most of her former colleagues into a quiet private life. But America's first female justice is blazing a new path in retirement, too. At 76, O'Connor is still physically and mentally fit. Her current schedule—packed with appeals-court hearings, law-school lectures, speechmaking and book writing—can make her days on the court look practically languorous. And these commitments don't include her recent work with the Iraq Study Group (or her aerobics classes). She divides her time between Washington, where she maintains her chambers, and Phoenix, where she cares for her husband, John, who suffers from Alzheimer's. "She just put it in third gear and went on," says her brother, H. Alan Day.
Before she stepped down, O'Connor seemed dismissive of the life of an ex-justice. She once told her brother: "When you retire from the court, you become a nobody." Though Justice Potter Stewart, whose seat O'Connor filled, was an advocate of stepping down in your prime, O'Connor wasn't sure whether she'd one day follow his lead. "Most of them get ill and are really in bad shape, which I would've done at the end of the day myself, I suppose, except my husband was ill and I needed to take action there," she told NEWSWEEK recently in a rare interview in her chambers.
O'Connor carefully weighed when to quit the bench. In the spring of 2005, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist publicly battling thyroid cancer, the two justices discussed timing. "We talked a little bit," O'Connor recalls. "I was concerned about whether he had an intention to step down since his plans might have altered my own. It's hard for the nation to grapple with two [retirements] at once," she says. "He indicated he didn't want to step down." So she realized she had to go first.
After O'Connor left, she'd planned to spend time with her husband—but she couldn't predict the cruel trajectory of his disease. John, a lawyer, and O'Connor had long been fixtures on the Washington social circuit, known for their ballroom dancing. "Here you have this magnificent man full of Irish humor and tales and then suddenly the fog rolled in," says former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, a family friend. In earlier stages of John's illness, O'Connor would take him to the court with her because he couldn't be left alone.
After O'Connor was freed from her daily duties at the court—it took six months before Alito took her seat—John's condition deteriorated. Last summer she reluctantly placed him in a care center near their home in Phoenix; she visits him often. "It's such a miserable disease. It's so sad. It's so hard. I did the best I could," she says. "He wants me there all the time." It's been a difficult transition, says Simpson. "It's tough to go home at night and no longer have this warm, witty guy there."
The void created by John's illness may help explain O'Connor's refusal to retire to Arizona and instead keep herself immersed in work. Now, she says, she's rethinking her earlier prediction of becoming a "nobody." "I think there is a fairly narrow margin of time in which the voice can still be heard," she says. Because O'Connor chose to retire rather than resign, she's still considered an active judge and draws a salary. So she has responsibilities as an officer of the court to fill in as a judge on appeals courts—a task that requires copious preparation. Even the most mundane duties of judgeship do not escape her: last month she spent two days swearing in public officials in Arizona. Being a judge also means O'Connor can't cash in on any of the speeches or public appearances she makes. That would change if she resigned. But then, she wouldn't have an office at the court. Maybe then she would be a nobody. "I'd be on my own," she says. "I have chosen a different route."
That route has led her to speak out on a handful of causes, like the importance of an independent judiciary and teaching civics. She's also waded into one of the nation's most difficult problems: what to do in Iraq. When James Baker first asked her to join the Iraq Study Group, O'Connor was baffled. "I wasn't sure I should do it," she recalls. "It was so out of my field of judging. I don't know anything about the military." Though the project was more grueling and time-consuming than she'd imagined, she found it fascinating.
Later, O'Connor had little patience when the media wanted to turn the commission members into celebrities. At one meeting, recalls Alan Simpson, also a study-group member, famed photographer Annie Leibovitz arrived to take a group portrait for Men's Vogue. "We all sat there, no one said anything," says Simpson. "Then she said, 'Not me. That's not what I'm here for. This is not about our pictures going out somewhere,' and the rest of us piped up to agree." (Baker and co-chair Lee Hamilton sat for the portrait.) Lately, some study-group members have expressed frustration that President George W. Bush has not embraced their recommendations, but O'Connor—still unwilling to plunge into politics—demurs. "There are probably no perfect answers," she says.
While O'Connor's been busy charting a new course, the court she left behind is changing, too. She's often said she's disappointed that her replacement was not a woman. But gender balance isn't the court's only shift. O'Connor gained a reputation as the swing vote on issues like abortion, affirmative action and school prayer—a designation she's always chafed against. Still, she acknowledges some decisions could change without her. "I'm sure there will be some sense that in some instances, had I been on the court, my vote might have differed from some of the new members," she says. "But that's all right. That's the way things go."
A year after her departure, O'Connor admits she misses the court. "Occasionally I'll see one [upcoming case] and say, 'Well, I wonder what they're going to do to my old writing in Case X'," she says. But O'Connor seems to live by the motto stitched into a needlepoint pillow on her couch: MAYBE IN ERROR BUT NEVER IN DOUBT. She says she has no regrets about leaving the bench. And she refuses to second-guess any old votes. "I don't look back and say, 'Oh, gee.' There's no use living that way. Do the best you can and look forward," she says. Even in retirement, O'Connor sees the road ahead.

SYLLABUS
Course: The Legal and Social Environment of Business (BUS-263)
MW 8:00 - 9:15 p.m., Spring Term 2007
Instructor: Jason McCulloch
___________________________________________________________

Monday Review Exam #1; Discuss Chapter 6
February 12 Assignment: Review Chapter 6, Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 6
February 14 Assignment: Read Chapter 7, Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes

Monday Discuss Chapter 7
February 19 Assignment: An additional assignment will be given tonight. It will be due on
March 7th.

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 7
February 21 Assignment: Read Chapter 8, Torts and Cyber Torts

Monday Discuss Chapter 8 & ARTICLE #2 DUE
February 26 Assignment: Review Chapter 8

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 8
February 28 Assignment: Read Chapter 9, Strict Liability and Product Liability

Monday Discuss Chapter 9
March 5 Assignment: Read Chapter 10, Intellectual Property and Internet Law

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 10 & ASSIGNMENT #1 DUE
March 7 Assignment: Review Chapter 10

Monday Discuss Chapter 10 and Review for Exam #2
March 12

Wednesday EXAM #2
March 14

Monday NO CLASS: Spring Break
March 19 Assignment: Read Chapter 11, Contract Formation

Wednesday NO CLASS
March 21 Assignment: Read Chapter 11, Contract Formation

Monday Review Exam #2 and Discuss Chapter 11
March 26 Assignment: Review Chapter 11

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 11 & ARTICLE #3 DUE
March 28 Assignment: Review Chapter 11

Monday Discuss Chapter 11
April 2 Assignment: Read Chapter 12, Contract Defenses, Discharge, and Remedies

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 12
April 4 Assignment: Review Chapter 12

Monday Discuss Chapter 12
April 9 Assignment: Read Chapter 19, Consumer Protection

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 19
April 12 Assignment: Read Chapter 22, Promoting Competition

Monday Discuss Chapter 22
April 16 Assignment: Read Chapter 2, Ethics and Social Responsibility

Wednesday Discuss Chapter 2
April 18

Monday Catch-up day and Review for Final Exam
April 23

Wednesday Make Up Exams
April 25 (please see Course Policies)

Monday FINAL EXAM 7:30 P.M
April 30

SATURDAY SPRING SEMESTER SYLLABUS

Course: The Legal and Social Environment of Business (BUS-263)
Saturday 8:00 – 10:30 a.m., Spring Term 2007
Instructor: Jason McCulloch
___________________________________________________________

Saturday Introduction
January 6 Assignment: Read Chapter 1, The Legal and International Foundations

Saturday Discuss Chapter 1
January 13 Assignment: Read Chapter 4, The American Court System

Saturday Discuss Chapter 4
January 20 Assignment: Read Chapter 3, Legal Representation and ADR

Saturday Finish Chapter 4, Discuss Chapter 3, and ARTICLE # 1 DUE
January 27 Assignment: Read Chapter 5, Constitutional Authority to Regulate Business

Saturday Discuss Chapter 5
February 3

Saturday Exam #1
February 10 Assignment: Read Chapter 6, Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies

Saturday Review Exam #1 and Discuss Chapter 6
February 17 Assignment: Read Chapter 7, Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes

Saturday Discuss Chapter 7 and ARTICLE # 2 DUE
February 24 Assignment: Read Chapter 8, Torts and Cyber Torts
Read Chapter 9, Strict Liability and Product Liability
An additional assignment will be given today. It will be due on March
10th

Saturday Discuss Chapters 8 and 9
March 3 Assignment: Read Chapter 10, Intellectual Property and Internet Law

Saturday Discuss Chapter 10 and Assignment #1 Due
March 10

Saturday EXAM #2
March 17

Saturday NO CLASS! SPRING BREAK! BE SAFE!
March 24 Assignment: Read Chapter 11, Contract Formation

Saturday Review Exam #2; Discuss Chapter 11, and ARTICLE #3 DUE
March 31 Assignment: Read Chapter 12, Contract Defenses, Discharge, and Remedies
Read Chapter 19, Consumer Protection

Saturday Discuss Chapter 12 and Chapter 19
April 7 Assignment. Read Chapter 22, Promoting Competition
Read Chapter 2, Ethics and Social Responsibility

Saturday Discuss Chapter 22 and Chapter 2
April 14

Saturday Catch up Day/Review for Final and Make up Exams
April 21

Saturday Final Exam 8AM
April 28

REMINDER FALL FINAL

FINAL BEGINS AT 7:30PM. NOT AT 8:00 PM Remember the rule regarding being late for a test. Refer to you course policies if you do not. Thanks

jason