Week 6 discussion
DQ1 TraderRon.com
Initial Text:Dana and Ronnie operate a Web-based business,
TraderRon.com, an Internet swap site that uses a Dutch auction system pioneered
by Priceline.com. TraderRon.com allows customers to make offers to other
customers to swap such items as their unused frequent flyer miles for other
customers’ unwanted merchandise, including DVDs, music CDs, used books, and any
other merchandise customers might want to trade. No sales involving payment of
money are made on the site. Some of the merchandise that has been offered on
the site and swapped consists of bootleg or pirated merchandise, as well as
designer knockoffs. All of TraderRon.com’s income derives from advertising.
TraderRon’s website and advertising use a black and grey
symbol to represent its swapping service. It has used this symbol consistently
and registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The symbol is very
similar to the Nike swoosh symbol, except it fades from black to grey from left
to right. TraderRon.com uses a multimedia presentation to explain its operation
to users. The multimedia presentation was created by a friend of Dana’s as his
senior portfolio project at school, where he was majoring in website design and
multimedia. Dana paid him with a free trip to the Caribbean, which she had won
in a contest. No copyright was registered in connection with the multimedia
presentation.
TraderRon.com sends a weekly e-mail update to customers who
have registered on the site. The e-mail is sent via an e-mail address Ronnie
established at Yahoo.com. TraderRon.com’s customers are located throughout the
U.S. and some are overseas.
What intellectual property and Internet law issues are
raised by TraderRon.com’s business model?
What sort of liability is the business risking?
What legal implications could arise from using the Yahoo.com
e-mail account for swap.com’s mass e-mailings?
DQ2 Modern Problems
Joel, a former employee of NetworkBank, an online bank,
decided to exact some revenge. Though his official access to the bank’s records
was removed, he was able to hack into the bank’s database of customer information,
obtaining passwords associated with customer debit cards. Using debit card
numbers and passwords, he purchased merchandise online from various venders,
including online auction sites, such as eBay. Among the bank customers whose
accounts he raided was Elle, a consumer, and Pet Products, Inc., a business
that sells pet products online. Joel took $85 from Elle’s checking account the
first time, which she didn’t notice until a week later, at which point she
notified NetworkBank. Joel took $350 from Elle’s account a few weeks later,
which she noticed the next day and immediately reported to the bank. Joel
accessed Pet Products, Inc., just once, for $3,450, which the company noticed
the next day and reported to NetworkBank.
Joel also wanted revenge against a former NetworkBank
employee, Gwen, who he believed to be responsible for his firing. She left the
bank and was working elsewhere. Using Internet search engines, he found
postings that Gwen had made to chat rooms on various Internet sites. Using this
information, Joel contacted PrivateI.com, an Internet based information and
investigation service. He paid the fee required for an investigation on Gwen,
and obtained her home and work addresses and telephone numbers. PrivateI.com
did not inquire why Joel wanted the information about Gwen. Joel followed Gwen
as she exited her workplace one night and attacked her, injuring her severely.
Joel is now under arrest.
What remedies do Elle and Pet Products, Inc. have against
NetworkBank for the unauthorized fund transfers? What law applies?
What is the extent of liability for the consumers in this
scenario? May Gwen hold PrivateI.com liable for her injuries? Why or why not?
What preventative actions should the businesses mentioned in
this scenario have undertaken to prevent what occurred here?
