Question 1

On balance, do you think it would be better for countries to agree mutually to simply enforce judgments in favor of private citizens (nationals or nonnationals) obtained from foreign courts, respecting the effort and delay the plaintiff has already undergone in obtaining the judgment and without applying culturally based notions of justice Why or why not If not, try generating a list of principles you think should permit a court to refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Accepted Answer

NO ANSWER

Question 2

Why do you think China, one of the most communist of nations, wanted to join the WTO Would it surprise you to learn that Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and Uzbekistan, while not currently WTO members, are all formally enrolled as observer countries This means they are (or are considering) pursuing accession negotiations to become WTO member states. The most recent state to become an observer country is Iran. Why might it have now decided to become involved with the WTO

Accepted Answer

On December 11, 2005, Saudi Arabia became the newest full member of the WTO. Iran is now an observer country. However, the final question could be reposed using Syria as the example, which is neither a WTO member state nor an observer.
Discussion. China was and is actively looking to strengthen its economy. The status of observer carries with it the requirement that accession negotiations begin within five years of establishing that status. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Uzbekistan have all begun accession negotiations. Syria currently has no established relationship with the WTO. At the time of this writing, 31 countries have observer status.

Question 3

America has embraced fast food. This may be part of the reason that obesity, in the United States, has risen at an epidemic rate during the past 20 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, currently one-third of the adults in the United States are considered obese. Seventeen percent of those between 2 and 19 are obese.
a. Should other countries be concerned about the influx of American fast-food chains Why or why not
b. What about countries that provide universal health care
c. If a country is concerned about its citizens' dietary changes, what actions should it take in response Explain. [For more on obesity in the United States, see the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html ] A group called the Hindu Jagran Manch, or the Hindu Awakening Platform, said Valentine's Day was an affront to Indian traditional culture and warned against Feb. 14 celebrations in the city. Many conservative segments of Indian society view the day-a celebration of romantic love-as indecent.
"Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, and Father's Day … these are all the gimmicks of multinational companies to market their products. Valentine's Day is against the culture and ethics of Indian society," said Vinay Tewari, a Manch leader.

Accepted Answer

a. &#10;Other countries are bound to think about the influx of the American Fast Food giants entering their countries. It is because American fast foods are rich in Fat and calories. It will be difficult for people going through a normal living style to get rid of all the calories and fat they produce. &#10;b. &#10;Even countries which provide universal health care are supposed to be concerned about the entry of American fast food giants into their countries. It is because the fast food these stores supply is so appetizing they are quite difficult to be kept aside. Also, the fast food companies cultivate bad food habits which are quite difficult to get rid of. &#10;c. &#10;Governments cannot prevent the entry of Multinationals companies operating in various countries instead what the respective governments can do is to prevent spread of the bad food culture among its people. They can ask the multinational food giants to develop menu which is good for its people and suits the country and the people's life style and customs. Thus, a country concerned about its people's dietary habits can allow the food giants in their country but change the menu according to the country's culture and food habits.

Question 4

Is it ethical for the U.S. Congress to impose federal laws on the operations of U.S. corporations abroad Why or why not

Accepted Answer

The answer of Is it ethical for the U.S. Congress...

Question 5

In late 2007, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Framework Directive on Equal Treatment, which prohibits unjustified age discrimination in the workplace, applied to national laws requiring age-based compulsory retirement. The case challenged a Spanish law permitting employers to impose a compulsory retirement age. Although the Court held the Directive applied to the Spanish law, it nevertheless ruled that the Spanish legislation was a lawful, appropriate means of achieving a legitimate government aim. The law had been passed during a period of high unemployment in Spain and was intended to further a national policy for a better distribution of work between generations.
In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against individuals who are 40 or older. It applies to decisions to hire or fire, as well as to discriminatory compensation or other terms or conditions of employment. Interestingly, a narrow exception allows universities to require retirement of tenured faculty who reach the age of 70. The ADEA specifically applies to American citizens employed overseas by American companies.
Which policy do you favor-the Spanish or the American approach to compulsory retirement Why Is this an issue over which countries should be allowed to differ

Accepted Answer

The answer of In late 2007, the European Court of...

Question 6

As a result of threatened attacks by Manch, many shopkeepers in India's largest state closed for Valentine's Day. A nation's cultural values can sometimes conflict with "outside" values spread through the process of globalization. Consider the following:
a. Should the shopkeepers have closed their doors
b. Do you understand how a celebration of "romantic love" might be offensive to some
c. Do you think that Valentine's Day and other U.S. holidays are promoted more for their commercial value than to further the stated purpose for the day Explain. Consider the dates when Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas decorations go up in U.S. stores.

Accepted Answer

The answer of As a result of threatened attacks by...

Question 7

Why do developed countries such as the United States regulate trade through the mechanisms described in this section Why might a less developed country do so

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why do developed countries such as the...

Question 8

Recall our definition of globalization: the breaking down of national boundaries to allow free interchange of people, communications, services, goods, businesses, investments, and ideas. Understanding what globalization is not may be as important as knowing what it is: It is not homogenization. The goal is not to make us all the same. But the goals do include increased choice through the sharing of diversity, as well as appropriate protection of historical, social, and cultural identities. It is also not just about free trade. Consider again some of the issues on the table in the TTIP and TPP negotiations, such as standards for food safety, of Internet freedom, for labor, and for acceptable environmental practices. The WTO's own website acknowledges, "[T]he WTO is not just about liberalizing trade, and in some circumstances its rules support maintaining trade barriers-for example, to protect consumers or prevent the spread of disease.… The system's overriding purpose is to help trade flow as freely as possible-so long as there are no undesirable side-effects."
What has also become clear is that the process of globalization has not been uniformly beneficial. "The real question isn't whether free markets are good or bad. It is why they are producing such wildly different results in different countries." One reason for disparate results may be whether the local government develops in tandem with the economy and is able to and does capture an appropriate portion of the wealth created to put to use on behalf of its population. Where that is not occurring, it has been argued that "multinationals-which account for the bulk of direct cross-border investment and one third of trade-have social responsibilities in nations where the rule of law is weak. And this view dispenses with the erroneous notion that open markets will magically produce prosperity in all conditions." The global impact of multinationals is a thread that runs throughout this chapter.
If multinational corporations have affirmative social responsibilities in "nations where the rule of law is weak," who should select and impose those responsibilities If you believe that it is a matter for corporate management, what forces might cause management to act more responsibly What forces exist that might impede more corporate social responsibility on the part of multinationals On the other hand, if you believe that social responsibilities should be imposed on multinationals, what body should do so How will that body obtain the power to legislate and enforce such responsibilities

Accepted Answer

The answer of Recall our definition of globalization: the breaking...

Question 9

Judge Leo Strine, the Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Delaware Court with original jurisdiction over state corporate law cases), has suggested that effective regulation of corporate behavior will require nations to give up some of their sovereignty to international institutions in exchange for regulation of the global product and financial markets in which multinational corporations conduct their business.59 Do you agree Will some form of corporate global regulation be necessary to protect all of the stakeholders of such corporations

Accepted Answer

The answer of Judge Leo Strine, the Vice Chancellor of...

Question 10

Recall our definition of globalization: the breaking down of national boundaries to allow free interchange of people, communications, services, goods, businesses, investments, and ideas. Understanding what globalization is not may be as important as knowing what it is: It is not homogenization. The goal is not to make us all the same. But the goals do include increased choice through the sharing of diversity, as well as appropriate protection of historical, social, and cultural identities. It is also not just about free trade. Consider again some of the issues on the table in the TTIP and TPP negotiations, such as standards for food safety, of Internet freedom, for labor, and for acceptable environmental practices. The WTO's own website acknowledges, "[T]he WTO is not just about liberalizing trade, and in some circumstances its rules support maintaining trade barriers-for example, to protect consumers or prevent the spread of disease.… The system's overriding purpose is to help trade flow as freely as possible-so long as there are no undesirable side-effects."
What has also become clear is that the process of globalization has not been uniformly beneficial. "The real question isn't whether free markets are good or bad. It is why they are producing such wildly different results in different countries." One reason for disparate results may be whether the local government develops in tandem with the economy and is able to and does capture an appropriate portion of the wealth created to put to use on behalf of its population. Where that is not occurring, it has been argued that "multinationals-which account for the bulk of direct cross-border investment and one third of trade-have social responsibilities in nations where the rule of law is weak. And this view dispenses with the erroneous notion that open markets will magically produce prosperity in all conditions." The global impact of multinationals is a thread that runs throughout this chapter.
Consider the critics from the United States and elsewhere who have expressed concern about continued globalization. What do you think they are most concerned about-the free interchange of people, businesses, goods, services, investments, communications, or ideas Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Recall our definition of globalization: the breaking...

Question 11

Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Latecomer to the international copyright regime launched by Berne, the United States joined the Convention in 1989. To perfect U.S. implementation of Berne,&#8230; Congress, in 1994 [through enactment of] &#167; 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) [, extended] copyright protection to preexisting works of Berne member countries, protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had failed to comply with &#8230; formalities Congress no longer requires as prerequisites to copyright protection.&#10;The URAA accords no protection to a foreign work after its full copyright term has expired, causing it to fall into the public domain, whether under the laws of the country of origin or of this country. Works encompassed by &#167; 514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author's country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. Foreign authors, however, gain no credit for the protection they lacked in years prior to &#167; 514's enactment. They therefore enjoy fewer total years of exclusivity than do their U.S. counterparts. As a consequence of the barriers to U.S. copyright protection prior to the enactment of &#167; 514, foreign works &#34;restored&#34; to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country.&#8230;&#10;Petitioners include orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works &#167; 514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8, and First Amendment both decree the invalidity of &#167; 514. [All further reference to petitioners' First Amendment argument has been omitted.-ed.] Underthose prescriptions of our highest law, petitioners assert, a work that has entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must forever remain there.&#10;[W]e conclude that &#167; 514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority.&#8230;&#10;I &#10;Members of the Berne Union agree to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own.&#8230; Each country, moreover, must afford at least the minimum level of protection specified by Berne. The copyright term must span the author's lifetime, plus at least 50 additional years, whether or not the author has complied with a member state's legal formalities. And, as relevant here, a work must be protected abroad unless its copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin.&#10;A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Until 1891, foreign works were categorically excluded from Copyright Act protection. Throughout most of the 20th century, the only eligible foreign authors were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to U.S. authors and whose works were printed in the United States. For domestic and foreign authors alike, protection hinged on compliance with notice, registration, and renewal formalities.&#10;The United States became party to Berne's multilateral, formality-free copyright regime in 1989. Initially, Congress adopted a &#34;minimalist approach&#34; to compliance with the Convention. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA)&#8230; accorded no protection for &#34;any work that is in the public domain in the United States.&#34;&#8230; Congress indicated, however, that it had not definitively rejected &#34;retroactive&#34; protection for preexisting foreign works; instead it had punted on this issue of Berne's implementation, deferring consideration until &#34;a more thorough examination of Constitutional, commercial, and consumer considerations is possible.&#34;&#10;The minimalist approach essayed by the United States did not sit well with other Berne members.&#8230; Mexican authorities complained about the United States' refusal to grant protection &#8230; to Mexican works that remained under copyright domestically. The Register of Copyrights also reported &#34;questions&#34; from Turkey, Egypt, and Austria. Thailand and Russia balked at protecting U.S. works, copyrighted here but in those countries' public domains, until the United States reciprocated with respect to their authors' works.&#10;Berne, however, did not provide a potent enforcement mechanism.&#8230;&#10;The landscape changed in 1994. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations produced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The United States joined both. TRIPS mandates, on pain of WTO enforcement, implementation of Berne's first 21 articles. The WTO gave teeth to the Convention's requirements: Noncompliance with a WTO ruling could subject member countries to tariffs or cross-sector retaliation. The specter of WTO enforcement proceedings bolstered the credibility of our trading partners' threats to challenge the United States for inadequate compliance with Article 18.&#10;Congress' response to the Uruguay agreements put to rest any questions concerning U.S. compliance with Article 18. Section 514 of the URAA extended copyright to works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States for any of [the previously listed] three reasons.&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Copyrights &#34;restored&#34; under URAA &#167; 514 &#34;subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted &#8230; if the work never entered the public domain.&#34; Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously.&#8230;&#10;The URAA's disturbance of the public domain hardly escaped Congress' attention. Section 514 imposed no liability for any use of foreign works occurring before restoration. In addition, anyone remained free to copy and use restored works for one year following &#167; 514's enactment.&#8230;&#10;In 2001, petitioners filed this lawsuit challenging &#167; 541.&#8230;&#10;II &#10;We first address petitioners' argument that Congress lacked authority, under the Copyright Clause, to enact &#167; 514. The Constitution states that &#34;Congress shall have Power&#8230; [t]o promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; the exclusive Right to their &#8230; Writings.&#34; Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.&#10;&#8230; Petitioners' contrary argument relies primarily on the Constitution's confinement of a copyright's lifespan to a &#34;limited Tim[e].&#34; &#34;Removing works from the public domain,&#34; they contend, &#34;violates the 'limited [times' restriction by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires.&#34;&#10;Our decision in Eldred [v. Ashcroft] is largely dispositive of petitioners' limited-time argument. There we addressed the question whether Congress violated the Copyright Clause when it extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights [in the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)]. Ruling that Congress acted within constitutional bounds, we declined to infer from the text of the Copyright Clause &#34;the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever 'fixed' or 'inalterable.'&#34; &#34;The word 'limited,'&#34; we observed,&#8230; is best understood to mean &#34;confine[d] within certain bounds,&#34; &#34;restrain[ed],&#34; or &#34;circumscribed.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The terms afforded works restored by &#167; 514 are no less &#34;limited&#34; than those the CTEA lengthened. In light of Eldred, petitioners do not here contend that the term Congress has granted U.S. authors-their lifetimes, plus 70 years-is unlimited. Nor do petitioners explain why terms of the same duration, as applied to foreign works, are not equally &#34;circumscribed&#34; and &#34;confined.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The difference, petitioners say, is that the limited time had already passed for works in the public domain. What was that limited term for foreign works once excluded from U.S. copyright protection? Exactly &#34;zero,&#34; petitioners respond. We find scant sense in this argument, for surely a &#34;limited time&#34; of exclusivity must begin before it may end.&#8230;&#10;Historical practice corroborates our reading of the Copyright Clause to permit full U.S. compliance with Berne.&#8230;&#10;On occasion &#8230; Congress has seen fit to protect works once freely available. Notably, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted protection to many works previously in the public domain. Before the Act launched a uniform national system, three States provided no statutory copyright protection at all. Of those that did afford some protection, seven failed to protect maps; eight did not cover previously published books; and all ten denied protection to works that failed to comply with formalities. The First Congress, it thus appears, did not view the public domain as inviolate.&#8230;&#10;Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting patents and copyrights to inventions and works that had lost protection. An 1832 statute authorized a new patent for any inventor whose failure, &#34;by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,&#34; to comply with statutory formalities rendered the original patent &#34;invalid or inoperative.&#34; An 1893 measure similarly allowed authors who had not timely deposited their work to receive &#34;all the rights and privileges&#34; the Copyright Act affords, if they made the required deposit by March 1,1893. And in 1919 and 1941, Congress authorized the President to issue proclamations granting protection to foreign works that had fallen into the public domain during World Wars I and II.&#8230;&#10;Installing a federal copyright system and ameliorating the interruptions of global war, it is true, presented Congress with extraordinary situations. Yet the TRIPS accord, leading the United States to comply in full measure with Berne, was also a signal event. Given the authority we hold Congress has, we will not second-guess the political choice Congress made between leaving the public domain untouched and embracing Berne unstintingly.&#10;Petitioners' ultimate argument as to the Copyright and Patent Clause concerns its initial words. Congress is empowered to &#34;promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts&#34; by enacting systems of copyright and patent protection.&#8230;&#10;The &#34;Progress of Science,&#34; petitioners acknowledge, refers broadly to &#34;the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.&#34; They nevertheless argue that federal legislation cannot serve the Clause's aim unless the legislation &#34;spur[s] the creation of&#8230; new works.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; In Eldred,&#8230; we held that the Copyright Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate to induce new works. Rather, we explained, the Clause &#34;empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to Berne &#34;promotes the diffusion of knowledge.&#34; A well-functioning international copyright system would likely encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. Full compliance with Berne, Congress had reason to believe, would expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U.S. works abroad, thereby benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.&#10;&#8230; Congress determined that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. We have no warrantto rejectthe rational judgment Congress made.&#10;Affirmed.&#10;a. If you were a Canadian composer in 1950 with a new orchestral piece, fully protected under the copyright laws of Canada (a Berne signatory), what would you have had to do to protect your work in the United States (based on the law as it is presented in Golan)?&#10;b. If you were a Canadian composer in 2005 under similar facts?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is...

Question 12

What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of each form of doing business in a foreign country Why would a firm choose one form over another

Accepted Answer

The answer of What are the relative advantages and disadvantages...

Question 13

Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Latecomer to the international copyright regime launched by Berne, the United States joined the Convention in 1989. To perfect U.S. implementation of Berne,&#8230; Congress, in 1994 [through enactment of] &#167; 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) [, extended] copyright protection to preexisting works of Berne member countries, protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had failed to comply with &#8230; formalities Congress no longer requires as prerequisites to copyright protection.&#10;The URAA accords no protection to a foreign work after its full copyright term has expired, causing it to fall into the public domain, whether under the laws of the country of origin or of this country. Works encompassed by &#167; 514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author's country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. Foreign authors, however, gain no credit for the protection they lacked in years prior to &#167; 514's enactment. They therefore enjoy fewer total years of exclusivity than do their U.S. counterparts. As a consequence of the barriers to U.S. copyright protection prior to the enactment of &#167; 514, foreign works &#34;restored&#34; to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country.&#8230;&#10;Petitioners include orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works &#167; 514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8, and First Amendment both decree the invalidity of &#167; 514. [All further reference to petitioners' First Amendment argument has been omitted.-ed.] Underthose prescriptions of our highest law, petitioners assert, a work that has entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must forever remain there.&#10;[W]e conclude that &#167; 514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority.&#8230;&#10;I &#10;Members of the Berne Union agree to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own.&#8230; Each country, moreover, must afford at least the minimum level of protection specified by Berne. The copyright term must span the author's lifetime, plus at least 50 additional years, whether or not the author has complied with a member state's legal formalities. And, as relevant here, a work must be protected abroad unless its copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin.&#10;A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Until 1891, foreign works were categorically excluded from Copyright Act protection. Throughout most of the 20th century, the only eligible foreign authors were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to U.S. authors and whose works were printed in the United States. For domestic and foreign authors alike, protection hinged on compliance with notice, registration, and renewal formalities.&#10;The United States became party to Berne's multilateral, formality-free copyright regime in 1989. Initially, Congress adopted a &#34;minimalist approach&#34; to compliance with the Convention. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA)&#8230; accorded no protection for &#34;any work that is in the public domain in the United States.&#34;&#8230; Congress indicated, however, that it had not definitively rejected &#34;retroactive&#34; protection for preexisting foreign works; instead it had punted on this issue of Berne's implementation, deferring consideration until &#34;a more thorough examination of Constitutional, commercial, and consumer considerations is possible.&#34;&#10;The minimalist approach essayed by the United States did not sit well with other Berne members.&#8230; Mexican authorities complained about the United States' refusal to grant protection &#8230; to Mexican works that remained under copyright domestically. The Register of Copyrights also reported &#34;questions&#34; from Turkey, Egypt, and Austria. Thailand and Russia balked at protecting U.S. works, copyrighted here but in those countries' public domains, until the United States reciprocated with respect to their authors' works.&#10;Berne, however, did not provide a potent enforcement mechanism.&#8230;&#10;The landscape changed in 1994. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations produced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The United States joined both. TRIPS mandates, on pain of WTO enforcement, implementation of Berne's first 21 articles. The WTO gave teeth to the Convention's requirements: Noncompliance with a WTO ruling could subject member countries to tariffs or cross-sector retaliation. The specter of WTO enforcement proceedings bolstered the credibility of our trading partners' threats to challenge the United States for inadequate compliance with Article 18.&#10;Congress' response to the Uruguay agreements put to rest any questions concerning U.S. compliance with Article 18. Section 514 of the URAA extended copyright to works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States for any of [the previously listed] three reasons.&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Copyrights &#34;restored&#34; under URAA &#167; 514 &#34;subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted &#8230; if the work never entered the public domain.&#34; Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously.&#8230;&#10;The URAA's disturbance of the public domain hardly escaped Congress' attention. Section 514 imposed no liability for any use of foreign works occurring before restoration. In addition, anyone remained free to copy and use restored works for&#10;one year following &#167; 514's enactment.&#8230;&#10;In 2001, petitioners filed this lawsuit challenging &#167; 541.&#8230;&#10;II &#10;We first address petitioners' argument that Congress lacked authority, under the Copyright Clause, to enact &#167; 514. The Constitution states that &#34;Congress shall have Power&#8230; [t]o promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; the exclusive Right to their &#8230; Writings.&#34; Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.&#10;&#8230; Petitioners' contrary argument relies primarily on the Constitution's confinement of a copyright's lifespan to a &#34;limited Tim[e].&#34; &#34;Removing works from the public domain,&#34; they contend, &#34;violates the 'limited [times' restriction by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires.&#34;&#10;Our decision in Eldred [v. Ashcroft] is largely dispositive of petitioners' limited-time argument. There we addressed the question whether Congress violated the Copyright Clause when it extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights [in the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)]. Ruling that Congress acted within constitutional bounds, we declined to infer from the text of the Copyright Clause &#34;the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever 'fixed' or 'inalterable.'&#34; &#34;The word 'limited,'&#34; we observed,&#8230; is best understood to mean &#34;confine[d] within certain bounds,&#34; &#34;restrain[ed],&#34; or &#34;circumscribed.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The terms afforded works restored by &#167; 514 are no less &#34;limited&#34; than those the CTEA lengthened. In light of Eldred, petitioners do not here contend that the term Congress has granted U.S. authors-their lifetimes, plus 70 years-is unlimited. Nor do petitioners explain why terms of the same duration, as applied to foreign works, are not equally &#34;circumscribed&#34; and &#34;confined.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The difference, petitioners say, is that the limited time had already passed for works in the public domain. What was that limited term for foreign works once excluded from U.S. copyright protection? Exactly &#34;zero,&#34; petitioners respond. We find scant sense in this argument, for surely a &#34;limited time&#34; of exclusivity must begin before it may end.&#8230;&#10;Historical practice corroborates our reading of the Copyright Clause to permit full U.S. compliance with Berne.&#8230;&#10;On occasion &#8230; Congress has seen fit to protect works once freely available. Notably, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted protection to many works previously in the public domain. Before the Act launched a uniform national system, three States provided no statutory copyright protection at all. Of those that did afford some protection, seven failed to protect maps; eight did not cover previously published books; and all ten denied protection to works that failed to comply with formalities. The First Congress, it thus appears, did not view the public domain as inviolate.&#8230;&#10;Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting patents and copyrights to inventions and works that had lost protection. An 1832 statute authorized a new patent for any inventor whose failure, &#34;by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,&#34; to comply with statutory formalities rendered the original patent &#34;invalid or inoperative.&#34; An 1893 measure similarly allowed authors who had not timely deposited their work to receive &#34;all the rights and privileges&#34; the Copyright Act affords, if they made the required deposit by March 1,1893. And in 1919 and 1941, Congress authorized the President to issue proclamations granting protection to foreign works that had fallen into the public domain during World Wars I and II.&#8230;&#10;Installing a federal copyright system and ameliorating the interruptions of global war, it is true, presented Congress with extraordinary situations. Yet the TRIPS accord, leading the United States to comply in full measure with Berne, was also a signal event. Given the authority we hold Congress has, we will not second-guess the political choice Congress made between leaving the public domain untouched and embracing Berne unstintingly.&#10;Petitioners' ultimate argument as to the Copyright and Patent Clause concerns its initial words. Congress is empowered to &#34;promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts&#34; by enacting systems of copyright and patent protection.&#8230;&#10;The &#34;Progress of Science,&#34; petitioners acknowledge, refers broadly to &#34;the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.&#34; They nevertheless argue that federal legislation cannot serve the Clause's aim unless the legislation &#34;spur[s] the creation of&#8230; new works.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; In Eldred,&#8230; we held that the Copyright Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate to induce new works. Rather, we explained, the Clause &#34;empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to Berne &#34;promotes the diffusion of knowledge.&#34; A well-functioning international copyright system would likely encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. Full compliance with Berne, Congress had reason to believe, would expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U.S. works abroad, thereby benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.&#10;&#8230; Congress determined that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. We have no warrantto rejectthe rational judgment Congress made.&#10;Affirmed.&#10;What does it mean to say that a work is in the &#34;public domain&#34;?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is...

Question 14

Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and Mohammad K. Azarian
In order to protect the five important indispensables in Islam (religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property), Islamic Law has provided a worldly punishment in addition to that in the hereafter. Islam has, in fact, adopted two courses for the preservation of these five indispensables: the first is through cultivating religious consciousness in the human soul and the awakening of human awareness through moral education; the second is by inflicting deterrent punishment, which is the basis of the Islamic criminal system. Therefore "Hudoud," Retaliation (Qesas), and Discretionary (Tazir) punishments have been prescribed according to the type of the crime committed.
Islamic Law and Jurisprudence are not always understood by the Western press. Although it is the responsibility of the mass media to bring to the world's attention violations of human rights and acts of terror, many believe that media stereotyping of all Muslims is a major problem. The [1993] bombing at the World Trade Center in New York City is a prime example. The media often used the term "Islamic Fundamentalists" when referring to the accused in the case. They also referred to the Egyptian connections in that case as "Islamic Fundamentalists." The media have used the label of "Islamic Fundamentalist" to imply all kinds of possible negative connotations: terrorists, kidnappers, and hostage takers. Since the media do not use the term "Fundamentalist Christian" each time a Christian does something wrong, the use of such labels is wrong for any group, Christians, Muslims, or Orthodox Jews.
A Muslim who is trying to live his religion is indeed a true believer in God. This person tries to live all of the tenets of his religion in a fundamental way. Thus, a true Muslim is a fundamentalist in the practice of that religion, but a true Muslim is not radical, because the Quran teaches tolerance and moderation in all things. When the popular media generalize from the fundamentalist believer to the "radical fundamentalist" label they do a disservice to all Muslims and others.
NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
To understand Islamic Law one must first understand the assumptions of Islam and the basic tenets of the religion. The meaning of the word Islam is "submission or surrender to Allah's (God's) will." Therefore, Muslims must first and foremost obey and submit to Allah's will. Mohammed the Prophet was called by God to translate verses from the Angel Gabriel to form the most important book in Islam, the Quran, Muslims believe.
* * * * *
The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most Westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government, and civil authority rest upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Sharia [Islamic law] is only applicable to Muslims.... The U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights) prohibits the government from "establishing a religion." The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded in numerous cases thatthe U.S. Government can't favor one religion over another. That concept is implicit, for most U.S. legal scholars and many U.S. academicians believe that any mixture of "church and state" is inherently evil and filled with many problems.
* * * * *
Islamic Law is very different from English Common Law or the European Civil Law traditions. Muslims are bound to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed whose translation of Allah or God's will is found in the Quran. Muslims are held accountable to the Sharia Law, but non-Muslims are not bound by the same standard (apostasy from Allah). Muslims and non-Muslims are both required to live by laws enacted by the various forms of government such as tax laws, traffic laws, white-collar crimes of business, and theft. These and many other crimes similarto Common Law crimes are tried in modern "Mazalim Courts." The Mazalim Courts can also hear civil law, family law, and all other cases. Islamic Law does have separate courts for Muslims for "religious crimes" and contemporary nonreligious courts for other criminal and civil matters.
Is it important to you that our laws protect "religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property" How do our laws protect these values Explain.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 48 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Accepted Answer

The answer of Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and...

Question 15

What may look to one observer like the application of objective standards may appear to another observer as improper protectionism. NAFTA, originally signed in the mid-1990s, calls for an open border for commercial truck traffic among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But in early 2005 Mexican trucks were still not allowed into the United States, due in part to litigation brought by environmental and labor groups. Their claim was that the United States hadn't appropriately considered the environmental impact of letting Mexican trucks roll on American roads because there are no standardized emissions rules for commercial vehicles. On balance, does this argument sound to you more like a principled objection or like protection for U.S. jobs Why See Dept. of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004).

Accepted Answer

The answer of What may look to one observer like...

Question 16

Identify a multinational firm that conducts business with suppliers in developing countries. Find its code of vendor conduct on its website and evaluate the areas of enforcement that might prove to be the most difficult.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Identify a multinational firm that conducts business...

Question 17

Do you think the Nicaraguan judgments should be enforceable in the United States Why or why not

Accepted Answer

The answer of Do you think the Nicaraguan judgments should...

Question 18

Original Appalachian Artworks (OAA) is the manufacturer and license holder of Cabbage Patch Kids dolls. Granada Electronics imported and distributed Cabbage Patch Kids dolls to the United States that were made in Spain by Jesmar under a license from OAA. Jesmar's license permitted manufacture and distribution of the dolls in Spain, the Canary Islands, Andorra, and Ceuta Melilla. Under the license, Jesmar agreed not to make, sell, or authorize any sale of the dolls outside its licensed territory and to sell only to those purchasers who would agree not to use or resell the licensed products outside the territory as well. Jesmar's argument that Granada's sales do not constitute &#34;gray market&#34; sales is that OAA's dolls sold in the United States have English-language adoption papers, birth certificates, and instructions while Granada's dolls come equipped with Spanish-language adoption papers, birth certificates, and instructions. In addition, Granada argues that the role of trademark law is to prevent an infringer from passing off its goods as being those of another. Such is not the case here. Are these sales prohibited Explain. See Orig. Appalachian Artworks v. Granada Electronics, 816 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1987); cert. den. 484 U.S. 847 (1987).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Original Appalachian Artworks (OAA) is the manufacturer...

Question 19

Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and Mohammad K. Azarian
In order to protect the five important indispensables in Islam (religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property), Islamic Law has provided a worldly punishment in addition to that in the hereafter. Islam has, in fact, adopted two courses for the preservation of these five indispensables: the first is through cultivating religious consciousness in the human soul and the awakening of human awareness through moral education; the second is by inflicting deterrent punishment, which is the basis of the Islamic criminal system. Therefore "Hudoud," Retaliation (Qesas), and Discretionary (Tazir) punishments have been prescribed according to the type of the crime committed.
Islamic Law and Jurisprudence are not always understood by the Western press. Although it is the responsibility of the mass media to bring to the world's attention violations of human rights and acts of terror, many believe that media stereotyping of all Muslims is a major problem. The [1993] bombing at the World Trade Center in New York City is a prime example. The media often used the term "Islamic Fundamentalists" when referring to the accused in the case. They also referred to the Egyptian connections in that case as "Islamic Fundamentalists." The media have used the label of "Islamic Fundamentalist" to imply all kinds of possible negative connotations: terrorists, kidnappers, and hostage takers. Since the media do not use the term "Fundamentalist Christian" each time a Christian does something wrong, the use of such labels is wrong for any group, Christians, Muslims, or Orthodox Jews.
A Muslim who is trying to live his religion is indeed a true believer in God. This person tries to live all of the tenets of his religion in a fundamental way. Thus, a true Muslim is a fundamentalist in the practice of that religion, but a true Muslim is not radical, because the Quran teaches tolerance and moderation in all things. When the popular media generalize from the fundamentalist believer to the "radical fundamentalist" label they do a disservice to all Muslims and others.
NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
To understand Islamic Law one must first understand the assumptions of Islam and the basic tenets of the religion. The meaning of the word Islam is "submission or surrender to Allah's (God's) will." Therefore, Muslims must first and foremost obey and submit to Allah's will. Mohammed the Prophet was called by God to translate verses from the Angel Gabriel to form the most important book in Islam, the Quran, Muslims believe.
* * * * *
The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most Westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government, and civil authority rest upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Sharia [Islamic law] is only applicable to Muslims.... The U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights) prohibits the government from "establishing a religion." The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded in numerous cases thatthe U.S. Government can't favor one religion over another. That concept is implicit, for most U.S. legal scholars and many U.S. academicians believe that any mixture of "church and state" is inherently evil and filled with many problems.
* * * * *
Islamic Law is very different from English Common Law or the European Civil Law traditions. Muslims are bound to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed whose translation of Allah or God's will is found in the Quran. Muslims are held accountable to the Sharia Law, but non-Muslims are not bound by the same standard (apostasy from Allah). Muslims and non-Muslims are both required to live by laws enacted by the various forms of government such as tax laws, traffic laws, white-collar crimes of business, and theft. These and many other crimes similarto Common Law crimes are tried in modern "Mazalim Courts." The Mazalim Courts can also hear civil law, family law, and all other cases. Islamic Law does have separate courts for Muslims for "religious crimes" and contemporary nonreligious courts for other criminal and civil matters.
Is it important to you that our laws protect "religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property" How do our laws protect these values Explain.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 48 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Accepted Answer

The answer of Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and...

Question 20

Would the result in this case be different if the shipment had been tomatoes as opposed to wheat Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Would the result in this case be...

Question 21

Camel Manufacturing imported nylon tents to the United States. The tents held nine people and weighed over 30 pounds. The tents' floors ranged from 8 feet by 10 feet to 10 feet by 14 feet. The tents were to be used as shelter during camping. The importer categorized the goods as &#34;sports equipment,&#34; which carried a 10 percent import duty, whereas the U.S. Customs Service considered the tents &#34;textile articles not specifically provided for,&#34; with a duty of $.25 per pound plus 15 percent import duty. The importer appealed the decision. What should be the result Explain. See Camel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 686 F.Supp. 912 (C.I.T. 1988); aff'd 861 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Camel Manufacturing imported nylon tents to the...

Question 22

Individual Social Responsibility to Humanity
Consider the following excerpt from a speech delivered September 28, 2001, by Jose Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1996) and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation for the East Timor Transition Government: There is no dispute that abject poverty, child labor, and prostitution are a moral indictment of all humanity. However, poverty should not only touch our conscience: It is also a matter of peace and security because it destabilizes entire countries and regions. In turn it threatens the integration of the global economy that is vital if the rich are to stay rich or if the poor are to move up, if only an inch. Peace will be illusory as long as the rich ignore the clamor of the poor for a better life, as long as hundreds of millions of people live below the poverty line, cannot afford a meal a day, do not have access to clean water and a roof '
Questions
Should most of us, not just active international businesses, accept a social responsibility to humanity If we answer yes to this question, how might our actions as students, educators, employees, employers, and investors change

Accepted Answer

The answer of Individual Social Responsibility to Humanity &#10;Consider the...

Question 23

Even if all could agree that as a whole the world would be better off if all national trade restrictions were ended, it does not follow that all countries or that all persons would be better off, certainly not in the short run. International trade has never been free of national barriers in modern times. WTO negotiations start with existing historical protections and member countries agree not to increase barriers and commit to participating in multilateral trade negotiations with the goal of lessening restrictions over time. New countries are admitted to the WTO only after sometimes prolonged negotiations with existing members over modifications of their existing trade-related barriers deemed necessary before they can be admitted. Every country has companies and industries that benefit directly from existing barriers, businesses whose profits rely on, and sometimes depend on, protection. Each of these businesses in turn have employees, suppliers, and communities that indirectly benefit from those protections. Thus, any change in a nation's trade policies will have a negative effect on some segment of its economy, even if it can be demonstrated that a change would produce a positive effect on the total economy.
Take a specific example: The United States has had an ongoing dispute with China over its protection of and trade in intellectual property. Recently a WTO dispute resolution panel ruled that China must permit foreign companies to sell music online in China. The panel said China's prohibition on downloaded music violates a promise China made on joining the WTO to open access to foreign mass-produced art. China responded that it never promised to open markets in the electronic distribution of sound recordings in a nonphysical form and that the restriction was necessary to protect China's "public morals." Interestingly, only once has the public morals defense previously been used before the WTO-by the United States when it argued in support of its ban on Internet gambling over the objections of Antigua. The United States lost. To succeed, a proponent has to be able to show that the restriction is "necessary" to defend public morals.
Now consider more broadly the trade relationship between the United States and China. What other forces influence the resolution of a particular dispute Consider, for example, that China exports to the United States $4.46 of goods for every $1 of goods that the United States exports to China, which would suggest that China is more dependent on trade with the United States than the reverse. Conversely, in significant part because of China's large positive trade balance with the United States, China invests its abundance of U.S. dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds. China's demand for treasuries keeps the interest rates the United States pays on those bonds significantly lower than they would otherwise be, thus reducing the cost of borrowing by the United States.
The United States also has an ongoing trading dispute with Brazil. Brazil forced the United States into the WTO dispute resolution process arguing that the $3 billion per year the United States has been paying to cotton growers (mostly large agribusinesses in the South) constitutes an unfair subsidy. United States companies account for about 40 percent of cotton exports globally. The WTO ruled in favor of Brazil and ultimately authorized the imposition of countervailing duties. In order to avoid the imposition of those duties, the United States negotiated a settlement that permits the United States to keep paying the $3 billion in subsidies, at least until Congress passes a new farm bill, so long as the United States also pays Brazil $147.3 million per year in the interim.
How would you challenge China's assertion that prohibiting music downloads is necessary to protect public morals in China What facts might you look for to support your argument

Accepted Answer

The answer of Even if all could agree that as...

Question 24

Should a Mexican citizen who bought a Chrysler vehicle in Mexico be allowed to sue the manufacturer in a U.S. court under U.S. product liability laws when the plaintiff's three-year-old son was killed when the passenger-side air bag deployed during an accident in Mexico See Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F. 3d 377 (5th Cir. 2002); cert. den. 538 U.S. 1012 (2003).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Should a Mexican citizen who bought a...

Question 25

Assume that you are interested in importing silk blouses from Bangkok, Thailand, to France. What facts might persuade you to enter into an agency agreement with a Thai blouse manufacturer rather than a distributorship or vice versa

Accepted Answer

The answer of Assume that you are interested in importing...

Question 26

From 2010 through 2012 many state legislatures considered or passed laws outlawing aspects of Islamic or Shariah law. Some of them would have prohibited the enforcement of private contracts in which a "butcher would no longer be able to enforce his contract for halal meat-contracts that, like deals for kosher or other faith-sanctioned foods, are regularly enforced around the country. Nor could a Muslim banker seek damages for violations of a financial instrument certified as 'Sharia compliant' since it pays no interest."
a. Develop an argument that laws prohibiting enforcement of such contracts would be unconstitutional.
b. What historical parallels exist in which laws in the United States were seen to deny equal protection to a subgroup of American citizens

Accepted Answer

The answer of From 2010 through 2012 many state legislatures...

Question 27

Prior to 1941, Kalmich owned a business in Yugoslavia. In 1941 the Nazis confiscated his property as a result of Kalmich's Jewish heritage and faith. Bruno purchased the business from the Nazis in 1942 without knowledge of the potential unlawful conversion. Kalmich contends that because the confiscation was in violation of well-defined principles of international law prior to the German occupation, the transfer to Bruno was ineffective. Kalmich seeks to apply a 1946 Yugoslavian law called &#34;Law Concerning the Treatment of Property Taken Away from the Owner.&#34; That law provides that where property is taken from its owners, the owner may bring an action against &#34;responsible persons&#34; for recovery. Does the act of state doctrine apply here If not, what should be the result in an American court Explain. See Kalmich v. Bruno, 450 F. Supp. 227 (N.D. IL 1978).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Prior to 1941, Kalmich owned a business...

Question 28

Why do you think Dole and Dow did not object to the new suits brought in the United States

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why do you think Dole and Dow...

Question 29

Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Latecomer to the international copyright regime launched by Berne, the United States joined the Convention in 1989. To perfect U.S. implementation of Berne,&#8230; Congress, in 1994 [through enactment of] &#167; 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) [, extended] copyright protection to preexisting works of Berne member countries, protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had failed to comply with &#8230; formalities Congress no longer requires as prerequisites to copyright protection.&#10;The URAA accords no protection to a foreign work after its full copyright term has expired, causing it to fall into the public domain, whether under the laws of the country of origin or of this country. Works encompassed by &#167; 514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author's country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. Foreign authors, however, gain no credit for the protection they lacked in years prior to &#167; 514's enactment. They therefore enjoy fewer total years of exclusivity than do their U.S. counterparts. As a consequence of the barriers to U.S. copyright protection prior to the enactment of &#167; 514, foreign works &#34;restored&#34; to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country.&#8230;&#10;Petitioners include orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works &#167; 514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8, and First Amendment both decree the invalidity of &#167; 514. [All further reference to petitioners' First Amendment argument has been omitted.-ed.] Underthose prescriptions of our highest law, petitioners assert, a work that has entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must forever remain there.&#10;[W]e conclude that &#167; 514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority.&#8230;&#10;I &#10;Members of the Berne Union agree to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own.&#8230; Each country, moreover, must afford at least the minimum level of protection specified by Berne. The copyright term must span the author's lifetime, plus at least 50 additional years, whether or not the author has complied with a member state's legal formalities. And, as relevant here, a work must be protected abroad unless its copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin.&#10;A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Until 1891, foreign works were categorically excluded from Copyright Act protection. Throughout most of the 20th century, the only eligible foreign authors were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to U.S. authors and whose works were printed in the United States. For domestic and foreign authors alike, protection hinged on compliance with notice, registration, and renewal formalities.&#10;The United States became party to Berne's multilateral, formality-free copyright regime in 1989. Initially, Congress adopted a &#34;minimalist approach&#34; to compliance with the Convention. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA)&#8230; accorded no protection for &#34;any work that is in the public domain in the United States.&#34;&#8230; Congress indicated, however, that it had not definitively rejected &#34;retroactive&#34; protection for preexisting foreign works; instead it had punted on this issue of Berne's implementation, deferring consideration until &#34;a more thorough examination of Constitutional, commercial, and consumer considerations is possible.&#34;&#10;The minimalist approach essayed by the United States did not sit well with other Berne members.&#8230; Mexican authorities complained about the United States' refusal to grant protection &#8230; to Mexican works that remained under copyright domestically. The Register of Copyrights also reported &#34;questions&#34; from Turkey, Egypt, and Austria. Thailand and Russia balked at protecting U.S. works, copyrighted here but in those countries' public domains, until the United States reciprocated with respect to their authors' works.&#10;Berne, however, did not provide a potent enforcement mechanism.&#8230;&#10;The landscape changed in 1994. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations produced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The United States joined both. TRIPS mandates, on pain of WTO enforcement, implementation of Berne's first 21 articles. The WTO gave teeth to the Convention's requirements: Noncompliance with a WTO ruling could subject member countries to tariffs or cross-sector retaliation. The specter of WTO enforcement proceedings bolstered the credibility of our trading partners' threats to challenge the United States for inadequate compliance with Article 18.&#10;Congress' response to the Uruguay agreements put to rest any questions concerning U.S. compliance with Article 18. Section 514 of the URAA extended copyright to works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States for any of [the previously listed] three reasons.&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Copyrights &#34;restored&#34; under URAA &#167; 514 &#34;subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted &#8230; if the work never entered the public domain.&#34; Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously.&#8230;&#10;The URAA's disturbance of the public domain hardly escaped Congress' attention. Section 514 imposed no liability for any use of foreign works occurring before restoration. In addition, anyone remained free to copy and use restored works for one year following &#167; 514's enactment.&#8230;&#10;In 2001, petitioners filed this lawsuit challenging &#167; 541.&#8230;&#10;II &#10;We first address petitioners' argument that Congress lacked authority, under the Copyright Clause, to enact &#167; 514. The Constitution states that &#34;Congress shall have Power&#8230; [t]o promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; the exclusive Right to their &#8230; Writings.&#34; Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.&#10;&#8230; Petitioners' contrary argument relies primarily on the Constitution's confinement of a copyright's lifespan to a &#34;limited Tim[e].&#34; &#34;Removing works from the public domain,&#34; they contend, &#34;violates the 'limited [times' restriction by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires.&#34;&#10;Our decision in Eldred [v. Ashcroft] is largely dispositive of petitioners' limited-time argument. There we addressed the question whether Congress violated the Copyright Clause when it extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights [in the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)]. Ruling that Congress acted within constitutional bounds, we declined to infer from the text of the Copyright Clause &#34;the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever 'fixed' or 'inalterable.'&#34; &#34;The word 'limited,'&#34; we observed,&#8230; is best understood to mean &#34;confine[d] within certain bounds,&#34; &#34;restrain[ed],&#34; or &#34;circumscribed.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The terms afforded works restored by &#167; 514 are no less &#34;limited&#34; than those the CTEA lengthened. In light of Eldred, petitioners do not here contend that the term Congress has granted U.S. authors-their lifetimes, plus 70 years-is unlimited. Nor do petitioners explain why terms of the same duration, as applied to foreign works, are not equally &#34;circumscribed&#34; and &#34;confined.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The difference, petitioners say, is that the limited time had already passed for works in the public domain. What was that limited term for foreign works once excluded from U.S. copyright protection? Exactly &#34;zero,&#34; petitioners respond. We find scant sense in this argument, for surely a &#34;limited time&#34; of exclusivity must begin before it may end.&#8230;&#10;Historical practice corroborates our reading of the Copyright Clause to permit full U.S. compliance with Berne.&#8230;&#10;On occasion &#8230; Congress has seen fit to protect works once freely available. Notably, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted protection to many works previously in the public domain. Before the Act launched a uniform national system, three States provided no statutory copyright protection at all. Of those that did afford some protection, seven failed to protect maps; eight did not cover previously published books; and all ten denied protection to works that failed to comply with formalities. The First Congress, it thus appears, did not view the public domain as inviolate.&#8230;&#10;Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting patents and copyrights to inventions and works that had lost protection. An 1832 statute authorized a new patent for any inventor whose failure, &#34;by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,&#34; to comply with statutory formalities rendered the original patent &#34;invalid or inoperative.&#34; An 1893 measure similarly allowed authors who had not timely deposited their work to receive &#34;all the rights and privileges&#34; the Copyright Act affords, if they made the required deposit by March 1,1893. And in 1919 and 1941, Congress authorized the President to issue proclamations granting protection to foreign works that had fallen into the public domain during World Wars I and II.&#8230;&#10;Installing a federal copyright system and ameliorating the interruptions of global war, it is true, presented Congress with extraordinary situations. Yet the TRIPS accord, leading the United States to comply in full measure with Berne, was also a signal event. Given the authority we hold Congress has, we will not second-guess the political choice Congress made between leaving the public domain untouched and embracing Berne unstintingly.&#10;Petitioners' ultimate argument as to the Copyright and Patent Clause concerns its initial words. Congress is empowered to &#34;promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts&#34; by enacting systems of copyright and patent protection.&#8230;&#10;The &#34;Progress of Science,&#34; petitioners acknowledge, refers broadly to &#34;the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.&#34; They nevertheless argue that federal legislation cannot serve the Clause's aim unless the legislation &#34;spur[s] the creation of&#8230; new works.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; In Eldred,&#8230; we held that the Copyright Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate to induce new works. Rather, we explained, the Clause &#34;empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to Berne &#34;promotes the diffusion of knowledge.&#34; A well-functioning international copyright system would likely encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. Full compliance with Berne, Congress had reason to believe, would expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U.S. works abroad, thereby benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.&#10;&#8230; Congress determined that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. We have no warrantto rejectthe rational judgment Congress made.&#10;Affirmed.&#10;Before Congress passed &#167; 514 of the URAA what could petitioners do that, after the legislation, was no longer legal?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is...

Question 30

Zedan received a telephone call from a Saudi Arabian organization offering him an engineering position at a construction project in Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Communications, an agency of the government, guaranteed payment to Zedan for any work he performed there, whether for the government or for a nonsovereign third party. After three years, Zedan left the country without being fully paid. After he returned to the United States, he filed an action in federal court seeking to enforce the ministry's guarantee. The ministry argued that it was protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Was Zedan's recruitment in the United States a commercial activity as required by the act Did this action have a direct effect in the United States as required by the act Explain. See Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 849 F.2d 1511 (1988).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zedan received a telephone call from a...

Question 31

Rare Earth Elements &#10;China controls 93 percent of the production of rare earth elements-metals less scarce than precious metals but still relatively rare. Many of these metals have turned out to be important to a wide range of green technologies, such as those used in wind turbines and in the electric motors for the Toyota Prius and Chevrolet Volt. They are also used in the electric motors in some U.S. missile guidance systems. China has been reducing production and exports of such metals to ensure it has an adequate supply for its own needs and to reduce environmental damage from the mines. 63 In 2011, a WTO panel held China's export control impermissible. It noted that the proffered environmental concerns had not resulted in reduced mine production.&#34; The panel's decision was affirmed on appeal in 2012.65 &#10;Question &#10;If these actions were being taken by the United States instead of China, do you think they would be defensible under the Export Administration Act Why or why not

Accepted Answer

The answer of Rare Earth Elements &#10;China controls 93 percent...

Question 32

Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and Mohammad K. Azarian
In order to protect the five important indispensables in Islam (religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property), Islamic Law has provided a worldly punishment in addition to that in the hereafter. Islam has, in fact, adopted two courses for the preservation of these five indispensables: the first is through cultivating religious consciousness in the human soul and the awakening of human awareness through moral education; the second is by inflicting deterrent punishment, which is the basis of the Islamic criminal system. Therefore "Hudoud," Retaliation (Qesas), and Discretionary (Tazir) punishments have been prescribed according to the type of the crime committed.
Islamic Law and Jurisprudence are not always understood by the Western press. Although it is the responsibility of the mass media to bring to the world's attention violations of human rights and acts of terror, many believe that media stereotyping of all Muslims is a major problem. The [1993] bombing at the World Trade Center in New York City is a prime example. The media often used the term "Islamic Fundamentalists" when referring to the accused in the case. They also referred to the Egyptian connections in that case as "Islamic Fundamentalists." The media have used the label of "Islamic Fundamentalist" to imply all kinds of possible negative connotations: terrorists, kidnappers, and hostage takers. Since the media do not use the term "Fundamentalist Christian" each time a Christian does something wrong, the use of such labels is wrong for any group, Christians, Muslims, or Orthodox Jews.
A Muslim who is trying to live his religion is indeed a true believer in God. This person tries to live all of the tenets of his religion in a fundamental way. Thus, a true Muslim is a fundamentalist in the practice of that religion, but a true Muslim is not radical, because the Quran teaches tolerance and moderation in all things. When the popular media generalize from the fundamentalist believer to the "radical fundamentalist" label they do a disservice to all Muslims and others.
NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
To understand Islamic Law one must first understand the assumptions of Islam and the basic tenets of the religion. The meaning of the word Islam is "submission or surrender to Allah's (God's) will." Therefore, Muslims must first and foremost obey and submit to Allah's will. Mohammed the Prophet was called by God to translate verses from the Angel Gabriel to form the most important book in Islam, the Quran, Muslims believe.
* * * * *
The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most Westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government, and civil authority rest upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Sharia [Islamic law] is only applicable to Muslims.... The U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights) prohibits the government from "establishing a religion." The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded in numerous cases thatthe U.S. Government can't favor one religion over another. That concept is implicit, for most U.S. legal scholars and many U.S. academicians believe that any mixture of "church and state" is inherently evil and filled with many problems.
* * * * *
Islamic Law is very different from English Common Law or the European Civil Law traditions. Muslims are bound to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed whose translation of Allah or God's will is found in the Quran. Muslims are held accountable to the Sharia Law, but non-Muslims are not bound by the same standard (apostasy from Allah). Muslims and non-Muslims are both required to live by laws enacted by the various forms of government such as tax laws, traffic laws, white-collar crimes of business, and theft. These and many other crimes similarto Common Law crimes are tried in modern "Mazalim Courts." The Mazalim Courts can also hear civil law, family law, and all other cases. Islamic Law does have separate courts for Muslims for "religious crimes" and contemporary nonreligious courts for other criminal and civil matters.
Another law over which countries have profound differences of opinion is capital punishment. At the time of this writing, a 56-year-old British woman was facing death by firing squad for smuggling about 10 pounds of cocaine into Bali. Nearly 100 countries have abolished capital punishment. According to Amnesty International, 682 confirmed executions were carried out worldwide in 2012 (excluding thousands in China, however, because accurate information is unavailable). The five countries with the highest numbers are China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Develop brief arguments both for and against capital punishment. Source: "Not Dead Yet," The Economist, April 13, 2013; and http://amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-executions-in-2012.

Unlock Deck

Unlock for access to all 48 flashcards in this deck.

Unlock Deck

k this deck

Accepted Answer

The answer of Dennis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and...

Question 33

From time to time courts are called upon to determine the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in a contract. One such case was DiMercurio v. Sphere Drake Insurance, 202 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2000). DiMercurio was injured in 1994 when the commercial fishing vessel in which he was working sank. The vessel was owned by R M, which was found by a court to be liable to DiMercurio for his injuries and ordered to pay $350,000 in compensation. However, because R M had no other assets, it assigned to DiMercurio all the rights it had against Sphere Drake, the London-based insurer of the fishing vessel. When DiMercurio looked to Sphere Drake for payment, it denied the claim and invoked the arbitration clause in its insurance policy with R M, which required the arbitration to take place in England. Should DiMercurio be required to pursue his claim through arbitration in England

Accepted Answer

The answer of From time to time courts are called...

Question 34

Why did the court hold that Vance, a U.S. corporation, could avoid Butters' claim of discrimination based on a claim of sovereign immunity Why did Butters argue that sovereign immunity would not apply

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why did the court hold that Vance,...

Question 35

If you were the vice president for supply chain management for a large manufacturer or retailer, what type of labor standards would you impose on suppliers from other countries, if any Question Is it ethical for the U.S. Congress to impose federal laws on the operations of U.S. corporations abroad Why or why not

Accepted Answer

The answer of If you were the vice president for...

Question 36

In the summer of 2007, 12 banana plantation workers from Nicaragua got their day or, rather, their four months in a California federal district court.
The workers were employed by Dole Food Co. on banana plantations in Nicaragua, where a pesticide known as DBCP, manufactured by Dow Chemical Co., was used to increase the weight of the banana harvest and help with rodent and pest control. In 1977 the U.S. government suspended the use of the chemical after complaints arose of sterility in California workers. When Dow informed Dole that it would no longer be producing the chemical, the two companies agreed that Dow would sell to Dole, for use in Central America, the more than 500,000 gallons that had been returned to it by other purchasers.
The plaintiffs were some of the workers who were exposed to DBCP while working for Dole in Nicaragua, workers who then became sterile.
After a successful suit was brought in the United States in the early 1980s on behalf of affected California workers, U.S. law firms began suing in U.S. courts on behalf of workers from other countries. Nearly every case ended when American courts ruled that the principle of forum non conveniens required the lawsuits to be maintained in the countries where the workers had suffered their injuries. Their view was that Nicaragua was a more appropriate forum for the dispute. So the workers tried again at home. After lengthy delays and. ultimately, a change in Nicaraguan law to facilitate the DBPC lawsuits, in 2002 a Nicaraguan court awarded nearly $490 million in damages and other judgments followed. But so far Dole and Dow have successfully blocked all enforcement of the judgments in U.S. courts. The new laws in Nicaragua have meant, however, that Dole and Dow have ceased invoking the forum non conveniens argument against new suits in the United States.
After a month of deliberations in the 2007 case in California, the jury awarded six of the Nicaraguan workers a total of $3.3 million. Following a number of post-trial motions, the companies successfully reduced the award to $1.58 million to be shared among four of the plaintiffs. The jury decision as to one plaintiff was overturned and Dole was granted a new trial as to another. In the years following, Dole filed post-trial motions to have the jury verdict thrown out; in 2011, the judgment was vacated. At the same time, each side accused the other of fraud, including fraud instigated by the opposing attorneys, but the California State Bar is no longer pursuing investigations of those attorneys.
Apart from whether Dole or Dow Chemical or both are liable for health issues associated with exposure to DBCP, was it ethical for Dole to use and Dow to supply DBCP for use in Nicaragua and elsewhere after the chemical was banned in the United States Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In the summer of 2007, 12 banana...

Question 37

Who is hurt in the United States by the tariffs described above Who in the United States is advantaged by them

Accepted Answer

The answer of Who is hurt in the United States...

Question 38

a. What did the court find with respect to the private law of the parties &#10;b. What did it find with respect to the application of custom

Accepted Answer

The answer of a. What did the court find with...

Question 39

Would the result in this case be different if the United States and Transatlantic agreed by contract that shipment was to arrive in Iran within a period of time that was only possible if the shipper used the canal route Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Would the result in this case be...

Question 40

Choice of Nationality &#10;In today's world, a corporation is generally free to choose its &#34;nationality&#34;-that is, its home country, the country in which it will establish its legal existence or, using U.S. terminology, the country in which it will incorporate. That nation's laws will govern the relationship between the entity and its owners-that is, the corporate governance rules it must follow-as well as the accounting standards with which it must comply. If incorporated outside of the United States, it will only become subject to U.S. securities laws if it chooses to list its securities on a U.S. exchange. Unlike other countries, the United States taxes U.S. corporations on their worldwide income, not just the income earned in the United States. Thus, if a business incorporates outside the country, it may avoid significant U.S. taxes, substantial U.S. regulation, and the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. &#10;Consider Michael Kors Holdings: its corporate headquarters are in Hong Kong; its clothes are manufactured primarily in Asia; its largest office is in New York; it receives about 95 percent of its revenues from U.S. and Canadian sales. But it is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, where it had no operations. Although it launched its initial public offering (IPO) of stock in the United States, as a foreign corporation its financial reporting requirements are much less than those discussed in Chapter 9. Financial reporting for foreign corporations has been deliberately lessened, precisely to make listing securities more attractive to foreign businesses. Although much of its income is currently taxed in the United States, if it grows its international sales, those sales will not be so taxed.&#10;Consider too a company's choice of place of incorporation for its subsidiaries. For some businesses, a significant source of profits derives from royalty and licensing fees generated by its intellectual property. Thus, a common tax strategy is to incorporate subsidiaries to hold valuable intellectual properties, like patents, in low-tax jurisdictions. Thus, Apple has subsidiaries in Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the British Virgin Islands. &#34;When customers across Europe, Africa or the Middle East... download a song, television show or app, the sale is recorded&#34; in Luxembourg.57 Quite legally, 70 percent of Apple's profits are allocated to its non-U.S. entities. &#34;Although technology is now one of the [United States] largest and most valued industries, many tech companies are among the least taxed.&#34;&#10;Question &#10;Michael Kors and Apple are acting legally and advantageously by moving some of their income tax liabilities out of the United States. Is this a good trend Is it equitable Consider smaller companies without the resources for such sophisticated tax advice. What about profit-comparable companies which suffer higher taxes because their revenues come from physical sales Is it equitable to countries which provide the infrastructure for high-tech development What about the countries that now can collect taxes from businesses that have little physical presence other than an office with a mailing address If there are inequities, what might bring them back into balance

Accepted Answer

The answer of Choice of Nationality &#10;In today's world, a...

Question 41

Even if all could agree that as a whole the world would be better off if all national trade restrictions were ended, it does not follow that all countries or that all persons would be better off, certainly not in the short run. International trade has never been free of national barriers in modern times. WTO negotiations start with existing historical protections and member countries agree not to increase barriers and commit to participating in multilateral trade negotiations with the goal of lessening restrictions over time. New countries are admitted to the WTO only after sometimes prolonged negotiations with existing members over modifications of their existing trade-related barriers deemed necessary before they can be admitted. Every country has companies and industries that benefit directly from existing barriers, businesses whose profits rely on, and sometimes depend on, protection. Each of these businesses in turn have employees, suppliers, and communities that indirectly benefit from those protections. Thus, any change in a nation's trade policies will have a negative effect on some segment of its economy, even if it can be demonstrated that a change would produce a positive effect on the total economy.
Take a specific example: The United States has had an ongoing dispute with China over its protection of and trade in intellectual property. Recently a WTO dispute resolution panel ruled that China must permit foreign companies to sell music online in China. The panel said China's prohibition on downloaded music violates a promise China made on joining the WTO to open access to foreign mass-produced art. China responded that it never promised to open markets in the electronic distribution of sound recordings in a nonphysical form and that the restriction was necessary to protect China's "public morals." Interestingly, only once has the public morals defense previously been used before the WTO-by the United States when it argued in support of its ban on Internet gambling over the objections of Antigua. The United States lost. To succeed, a proponent has to be able to show that the restriction is "necessary" to defend public morals.
Now consider more broadly the trade relationship between the United States and China. What other forces influence the resolution of a particular dispute Consider, for example, that China exports to the United States $4.46 of goods for every $1 of goods that the United States exports to China, which would suggest that China is more dependent on trade with the United States than the reverse. Conversely, in significant part because of China's large positive trade balance with the United States, China invests its abundance of U.S. dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds. China's demand for treasuries keeps the interest rates the United States pays on those bonds significantly lower than they would otherwise be, thus reducing the cost of borrowing by the United States.
The United States also has an ongoing trading dispute with Brazil. Brazil forced the United States into the WTO dispute resolution process arguing that the $3 billion per year the United States has been paying to cotton growers (mostly large agribusinesses in the South) constitutes an unfair subsidy. United States companies account for about 40 percent of cotton exports globally. The WTO ruled in favor of Brazil and ultimately authorized the imposition of countervailing duties. In order to avoid the imposition of those duties, the United States negotiated a settlement that permits the United States to keep paying the $3 billion in subsidies, at least until Congress passes a new farm bill, so long as the United States also pays Brazil $147.3 million per year in the interim.
How would you challenge China's assertion that prohibiting music downloads is necessary to protect public morals in China What facts might you look for to support your argument

Accepted Answer

The answer of Even if all could agree that as...

Question 42

Different countries and cultures have different norms for dress. In the United States, for example, some restaurants require men to wear jackets and state law generally prohibits even partial public nudity. Public schools often have enforceable dress codes. In the 1960s, those codes often prohibited female students from wearing pants. Consider the following:
• In 2010, the French Parliament passed a law forbidding people from concealing their faces in public, punishable by fines. Higher fines and prison sentences up to one year could be imposed on individuals who encouraged others to ignore the ban. Although freedom of religion is constitutionally protected in France, it is generally acknowledged that the purpose of the law was to prohibit Muslim women from wearing traditional head coverings and full-body robes. It has been estimated that fewer than 2,000 women in France, most of whom are French nationals, wear them. Some supporters of the ban have said that such robes are a means of forcing women to be submissive and are a sign of enslavement or debasement. Some of the wearers say that the dress is a method to concentrate on their religious faith.
• Also in 2010, one province in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim- majority nation, banned Muslim women from wearing revealing clothes such as tight skirts and pants. After their third violation, women could be subject to two weeks' detention. Shopkeepers violating restrictions on selling inappropriate clothing could lose their business licenses.
a. Do the laws discussed in the sections above seem logical to you On what basis should you judge them
b. Would conflicts with cultural issues, such as those addressed by the local laws above, impact your decision as a manager about where to conduct your business Should they impact your decisions Explain.
c. If your job required you to live in a country that had laws with which you disagreed on moral grounds, would you follow those laws Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Different countries and cultures have different norms...

Question 43

Thomas Friedman, in his 2005 book, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, offers his opinion that countries with connected manufacturing supply chains won't go to war with each other. He offers an example of Dell's multicountry supply chain for the manufacture of its laptops. On balance, do you think globalization is a catalyst for bringing world peace or a tinderbox that may set international disputes on fire through the collision of differing ideals

Accepted Answer

The answer of Thomas Friedman, in his 2005 book, The...

Question 44

How do you feel about the end result of this decision Did Butters suffer discrimination

Accepted Answer

The answer of How do you feel about the end...

Question 45

Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Latecomer to the international copyright regime launched by Berne, the United States joined the Convention in 1989. To perfect U.S. implementation of Berne,&#8230; Congress, in 1994 [through enactment of] &#167; 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) [, extended] copyright protection to preexisting works of Berne member countries, protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had failed to comply with &#8230; formalities Congress no longer requires as prerequisites to copyright protection.&#10;The URAA accords no protection to a foreign work after its full copyright term has expired, causing it to fall into the public domain, whether under the laws of the country of origin or of this country. Works encompassed by &#167; 514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author's country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. Foreign authors, however, gain no credit for the protection they lacked in years prior to &#167; 514's enactment. They therefore enjoy fewer total years of exclusivity than do their U.S. counterparts. As a consequence of the barriers to U.S. copyright protection prior to the enactment of &#167; 514, foreign works &#34;restored&#34; to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country.&#8230;&#10;Petitioners include orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works &#167; 514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8, and First Amendment both decree the invalidity of &#167; 514. [All further reference to petitioners' First Amendment argument has been omitted.-ed.] Underthose prescriptions of our highest law, petitioners assert, a work that has entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must forever remain there.&#10;[W]e conclude that &#167; 514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority.&#8230;&#10;I &#10;Members of the Berne Union agree to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own.&#8230; Each country, moreover, must afford at least the minimum level of protection specified by Berne. The copyright term must span the author's lifetime, plus at least 50 additional years, whether or not the author has complied with a member state's legal formalities. And, as relevant here, a work must be protected abroad unless its copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin.&#10;A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Until 1891, foreign works were categorically excluded from Copyright Act protection. Throughout most of the 20th century, the only eligible foreign authors were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to U.S. authors and whose works were printed in the United States. For domestic and foreign authors alike, protection hinged on compliance with notice, registration, and renewal formalities.&#10;The United States became party to Berne's multilateral, formality-free copyright regime in 1989. Initially, Congress adopted a &#34;minimalist approach&#34; to compliance with the Convention. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA)&#8230; accorded no protection for &#34;any work that is in the public domain in the United States.&#34;&#8230; Congress indicated, however, that it had not definitively rejected &#34;retroactive&#34; protection for preexisting foreign works; instead it had punted on this issue of Berne's implementation, deferring consideration until &#34;a more thorough examination of Constitutional, commercial, and consumer considerations is possible.&#34;&#10;The minimalist approach essayed by the United States did not sit well with other Berne members.&#8230; Mexican authorities complained about the United States' refusal to grant protection &#8230; to Mexican works that remained under copyright domestically. The Register of Copyrights also reported &#34;questions&#34; from Turkey, Egypt, and Austria. Thailand and Russia balked at protecting U.S. works, copyrighted here but in those countries' public domains, until the United States reciprocated with respect to their authors' works.&#10;Berne, however, did not provide a potent enforcement mechanism.&#8230;&#10;The landscape changed in 1994. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations produced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The United States joined both. TRIPS mandates, on pain of WTO enforcement, implementation of Berne's first 21 articles. The WTO gave teeth to the Convention's requirements: Noncompliance with a WTO ruling could subject member countries to tariffs or cross-sector retaliation. The specter of WTO enforcement proceedings bolstered the credibility of our trading partners' threats to challenge the United States for inadequate compliance with Article 18.&#10;Congress' response to the Uruguay agreements put to rest any questions concerning U.S. compliance with Article 18. Section 514 of the URAA extended copyright to works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States for any of [the previously listed] three reasons.&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Copyrights &#34;restored&#34; under URAA &#167; 514 &#34;subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted &#8230; if the work never entered the public domain.&#34; Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously.&#8230;&#10;The URAA's disturbance of the public domain hardly escaped Congress' attention. Section 514 imposed no liability for any use of foreign works occurring before restoration. In addition, anyone remained free to copy and use restored works for one year following &#167; 514's enactment.&#8230;&#10;In 2001, petitioners filed this lawsuit challenging &#167; 541.&#8230;&#10;II &#10;We first address petitioners' argument that Congress lacked authority, under the Copyright Clause, to enact &#167; 514. The Constitution states that &#34;Congress shall have Power&#8230; [t]o promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; the exclusive Right to their &#8230; Writings.&#34; Art. I, &#167; 8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.&#10;&#8230; Petitioners' contrary argument relies primarily on the Constitution's confinement of a copyright's lifespan to a &#34;limited Tim[e].&#34; &#34;Removing works from the public domain,&#34; they contend, &#34;violates the 'limited [times' restriction by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires.&#34;&#10;Our decision in Eldred [v. Ashcroft] is largely dispositive of petitioners' limited-time argument. There we addressed the question whether Congress violated the Copyright Clause when it extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights [in the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)]. Ruling that Congress acted within constitutional bounds, we declined to infer from the text of the Copyright Clause &#34;the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever 'fixed' or 'inalterable.'&#34; &#34;The word 'limited,'&#34; we observed,&#8230; is best understood to mean &#34;confine[d] within certain bounds,&#34; &#34;restrain[ed],&#34; or &#34;circumscribed.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The terms afforded works restored by &#167; 514 are no less &#34;limited&#34; than those the CTEA lengthened. In light of Eldred, petitioners do not here contend that the term Congress has granted U.S. authors-their lifetimes, plus 70 years-is unlimited. Nor do petitioners explain why terms of the same duration, as applied to foreign works, are not equally &#34;circumscribed&#34; and &#34;confined.&#34;&#8230;&#10;The difference, petitioners say, is that the limited time had already passed for works in the public domain. What was that limited term for foreign works once excluded from U.S. copyright protection? Exactly &#34;zero,&#34; petitioners respond. We find scant sense in this argument, for surely a &#34;limited time&#34; of exclusivity must begin before it may end.&#8230;&#10;Historical practice corroborates our reading of the Copyright Clause to permit full U.S. compliance with Berne.&#8230;&#10;On occasion &#8230; Congress has seen fit to protect works once freely available. Notably, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted protection to many works previously in the public domain. Before the Act launched a uniform national system, three States provided no statutory copyright protection at all. Of those that did afford some protection, seven failed to protect maps; eight did not cover previously published books; and all ten denied protection to works that failed to comply with formalities. The First Congress, it thus appears, did not view the public domain as inviolate.&#8230;&#10;Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting patents and copyrights to inventions and works that had lost protection. An 1832 statute authorized a new patent for any inventor whose failure, &#34;by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,&#34; to comply with statutory formalities rendered the original patent &#34;invalid or inoperative.&#34; An 1893 measure similarly allowed authors who had not timely deposited their work to receive &#34;all the rights and privileges&#34; the Copyright Act affords, if they made the required deposit by March 1,1893. And in 1919 and 1941, Congress authorized the President to issue proclamations granting protection to foreign works that had fallen into the public domain during World Wars I and II.&#8230;&#10;Installing a federal copyright system and ameliorating the interruptions of global war, it is true, presented Congress with extraordinary situations. Yet the TRIPS accord, leading the United States to comply in full measure with Berne, was also a signal event. Given the authority we hold Congress has, we will not second-guess the political choice Congress made between leaving the public domain untouched and embracing Berne unstintingly.&#10;Petitioners' ultimate argument as to the Copyright and Patent Clause concerns its initial words. Congress is empowered to &#34;promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts&#34; by enacting systems of copyright and patent protection.&#8230;&#10;The &#34;Progress of Science,&#34; petitioners acknowledge, refers broadly to &#34;the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.&#34; They nevertheless argue that federal legislation cannot serve the Clause's aim unless the legislation &#34;spur[s] the creation of&#8230; new works.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; In Eldred,&#8230; we held that the Copyright Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate to induce new works. Rather, we explained, the Clause &#34;empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.&#34;&#8230;&#10;&#8230; Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to Berne &#34;promotes the diffusion of knowledge.&#34; A well-functioning international copyright system would likely encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. Full compliance with Berne, Congress had reason to believe, would expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U.S. works abroad, thereby benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.&#10;&#8230; Congress determined that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. We have no warrantto rejectthe rational judgment Congress made.&#10;Affirmed.&#10;In the words of the Court, why did &#34;Congress have reason to believe&#34; that full compliance with the Berne Convention &#34;would expand the foreign markets available to U.S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U.S. works abroad&#34;? Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Justice Ginsburg &#10;The Berne Convention &#8230; is...

Question 46

In late 2007, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Framework Directive on Equal Treatment, which prohibits unjustified age discrimination in the workplace, applied to national laws requiring age-based compulsory retirement. The case challenged a Spanish law permitting employers to impose a compulsory retirement age. Although the Court held the Directive applied to the Spanish law, it nevertheless ruled that the Spanish legislation was a lawful, appropriate means of achieving a legitimate government aim. The law had been passed during a period of high unemployment in Spain and was intended to further a national policy for a better distribution of work between generations.
In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against individuals who are 40 or older. It applies to decisions to hire or fire, as well as to discriminatory compensation or other terms or conditions of employment. Interestingly, a narrow exception allows universities to require retirement of tenured faculty who reach the age of 70. The ADEA specifically applies to American citizens employed overseas by American companies.
Which policy do you favor-the Spanish or the American approach to compulsory retirement Why Is this an issue over which countries should be allowed to differ

Accepted Answer

The answer of In late 2007, the European Court of...

Question 47

Why might U.S. tariffs be friendlier to French products than Cambodian goods

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why might U.S. tariffs be friendlier to...

Question 48

What do you think it would take for a court to render a contract commercially impracticable In this case, the shipper was forced to spend almost $44,000 more than it had expected to spend in performing the $306,000 contract. What if the added cost had amounted to $100,000 Would you be persuaded that the contract was then commercially impracticable What if the closing of the canal doubled the price of the contract Explain.

Accepted Answer

The answer of What do you think it would take...

Deck 16: International Ethics and Law