Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

No Rest for Toyota

As Toyota continues to plagued by safety recalls (this week, the automaker recalled 17,000 Lexus hybrids for faulty gas tanks), the company is facing legal trouble of another matter, this time over a patent controversy that could result in a ban of Toyota hybrids altogether.

This patent fight originally began in 2004, when Paice LLC, a Florida-based hybrid technology company, sued Toyota for using its patented technology in second-generation Prius vehicles. The court ruled that Toyota had infringed on Paice’s patent and Toyota filed multiple appeals, losing each time. According to Forbes, Toyota has paid $5 million in damages and a small fraction of the court-ordered license fee of $98 a car while it challenges future royalties. In the latest case, Paice is claiming that Toyota’s third-generation hybrids are also infringing on its patents and that Toyota is not paying enough in royalties.

buy trazodone online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/trazodone.html no prescription pharmacy

Paice is ultimately hoping to get the International Trade Commission to ban Toyota hybrids altogether. Toyota has fought to get the case dismissed but to no avail.

According to one expert, who commented on the case last year, a ban is unlikely. But if it does happen, Toyota would be looking at production delays, the inability to sell hybrid vehicles in the United States and millions of dollars in lost revenue while it inevitably tries to work out a licensing agreement.

When taken with the ongoing recall fiasco, this patent infringement mess is further evidence of the difference a year can make in business.

buy ivermectin online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/ivermectin.html no prescription pharmacy

This time last year, Toyota was seen as the industry gold standard.

But their ongoing troubles paint a picture of a car company that seems to have gotten caught up in believing its own press and lost sight of key details, like safety and technology, that helped make it great. A company that once was the model for quality is quickly becoming a textbook example of the dangers of complacency.

hybrid

The Risks of Social Media: Legal Limits

social media

As we all know by now, social media can be both a great marketing and networking tool, as well as a good excuse for employment termination if mishandled — or worse, a lawsuit.

For instance, did you know that the Federal Trade Commission is watching those social media sites that promote a product or service? In the FTC’s December 2009 guidelines, it states that, among other things, those promoting a product/service on the internet (via Facebook, Twitter or any other form of social media) must incorporate a disclosure page or statement telling of the financial agreement between those giving testimonials about the product/service and the company itself.

Under the Guidelines, endorsements must reflect the genuine beliefs or opinions of the endorser and cannot otherwise be deceptive. In addition, the endorser must be a bona fide user of anything given of value to the endorser. For example, a blogger who reviews a product given to her for that purpose should disclose that it was provided by the manufacturer, and not purchased. Most do not follow this simple rule.

Understanding the legal implications of what is presented on your social media site can be confusing. To break it all down for us, Law.com issued a nice online article this morning, entitled “Minimizing the Legal Risks of Using Online Social Networks.” In our continuing coverage of the risks of social media, I present you with a breakdown of the piece:

  • Copyright: If you are using text, audio, video or images on your site that you did not create yourself, you may be violating an individual’s or organization’s copyright. However, if your posting qualifies as “fair use,” then use of the content will most likely not be questioned. Common situations of fair use include criticism, comment, news reporting and education.
  • Trademark: As the article states, “If you are using another’s trademark, you may be liable for infringement, where the owner can establish that your use of its mark or a mark similar to it will likely cause consumer confusion as to the source of the material.” And if it is proven that your conduct diluted the strength of the owner’s trademark, there may be potential for further liability.
  • Defamation: This is a huge topic in the realm of social media and the risks involved. In general terms, a defamatory statement is “a false and disparaging statement about another which causes injury to reputation (or in some cases causes emotional distress).” Along with individuals, businesses and products can also be defamed, sometimes causing reputation and financial damage (cue lawsuit).
  • Confidentiality: This section is geared towards those whose profession involves confidentiality agreements (lawyers, doctors, advisers, etc.). If there is proof of a breach of this agreement, possible sanctions “may include termination of employment, loss of professional license, potential significant civil liability (such as in the context of trade secret dissemination), or even criminal liability.”

These are just a few of the potential legal risks of social media. And as society continues to move to even more of an online presence (for both personal and business aspects), we will continue to learn the possible implications of a web 2.0 world.

Face v. Butt

In strange trademark dispute news, The North Face Apparel Corp. has sued the creators of The South Butt, a clothing line created by a University of Missouri freshman to parody the popular North Face line of outerwear and outdoor products. According to South Butt founder Jimmy Winklemann the line was developed as a joke “in response to a growing number of people who continued buying gear and clothes from a brand they really didn’t relate to, but were buying because ‘everyone else was.'” The South Butt’s logo is a virtual mirror image of that of The North Face and its motto “Never Stop Relaxing” is a direct mockery of The North Face’s “Never Stop Exploring” tagline.

buy symbicort online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/symbicort.html no prescription pharmacy

The North Face, however, was not amused.

buy chloroquine online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/chloroquine.html no prescription pharmacy

They sued Winklemann for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition and have asked the court to stop the company from producing and selling South Butt gear.

Winklemann and his attorney then submitted an irreverent reply, claiming their innocence and vowing to fight the charges:

While Jimmy may have turned 19 years of age, and while he looks 14 and, to some, acts 12, Jimmy and The South Butt have no choice but to defend the present action to protect the integrity of the marketplace, freedom of choice for the consumer, freedom of speech for all, and the fundamental tenets of capitalism, competition and The American Way.

The South Butt also placed the following disclaimer on its website, further cementing its stance as the little brother that won’t stop picking on his older sibling:

We are not in any fashion related to nor do we want to be confused with The North Face Apparel Corp. or its products sold under “The North Face” brand. If you are unable to discern the difference between a face and a butt, we encourage you to buy North Face products.

While legal experts continue to debate the merits of The North Face’s trademark claim, only time will tell how the court will rule. In the meantime, though, Winklemann can already claim one small victory: if it wasn’t for The North Face none of us would have ever heard of The South Butt in the first place.

buy rybelsus online meadowcrestdental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/rybelsus.html no prescription pharmacy

Billion-dollar Suit Against Chinese Gov, PC Makers

In what could be seen as a test case for U.S. companies, a small California-based software firm has filed a $2.2 billion copyright infringment suit against the People’s Republic of China, two Chinese software makers and seven major computer manufacturers.

The plaintiff in this groundbreaking case is Solid Oak Software, a family-owned firm in Santa Barbara. They make, among other things, software called CYBERsitter, which prevents children from viewing pornographic or violent content on the internet. Solid Oak claims that Chinese software makers and computer manufacturers stole 3,000 lines of code from their CYBERsitter program to create Green Dam Youth Escort software, which works similar to CYBERsitter in that it prevents users from viewing certain web pages. After Green Dam was created, the Chinese government mandated that all manufacturers bundle the software into any computer sold in China after July 1, 2009. This was the government’s way of restricting the public, young and old, from viewing various political and religious web sites.

The suit names the following defendants:

  • Sony
  • Toshiba
  • Lenovo Group
  • Acer
  • ASUSTeK Computer
  • BenQ Corp.
  • Haier Group
  • Zhengzhou Jinhui Computer System Engineering
  • Beijing Dazheng Human Language Technology Academy
  • The People’s Republic of China

Though the mandate involving Green Dam software’s installation on all new computers was lifted after the Obama administration warned China that the requirement could violate free-trade agreements, 56.5 million copies had been distributed by June 2009 alone. And with a $39.95 price on each CYBERsitter product, it seems that whether they win or lose the case, Solid Oak is losing out on profits. But we should also remember that win or lose, this case has the potential to pave the way for future copyright infringement cases of this nature.