Question: 1. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the precedents established in their jurisdictions unless there is a compelling reason not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given that our government now regulates so many areas by statute?
2. After World War II, several Nazis were convicted of "crimes against humanity" by an international court. Assuming that these convicted war criminals had not disobeyed any law of their country and had merely been following their government's orders, what law had they violated? Explain.
Case Study: Apple Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
Purpose: One of the pur¬poses of this course is to acquaint students with legal problems and issues that occur in society in general and in business in particular. The limits of time and space do not allow all of the principles to be presented against the background of their development and the reasoning in their application.
Objectives: 1. Students should be able to recognize legal problems ("spot the issues") when they arise
2. Students should also be able to recognize the competing interests involved in an issue and reason through opposing points of view to a decision
3. Students should know the law allows business people to make better business decisions
Preparation Instructions: 1. The paper should be formatted and typed using Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, and one-inch margins (noexceptions).
2. The length of the paper should be at least 4 pages (including the title and references pages).
3. Use APA 6th edition formatting and use a minimum of 2references.
Content Instructions: Apple products (iPads, iPhones, iPods) use the term APP STORE. Amazon.com launched an Appstore for viewing and downloading applications to Android devices (such as the Kindle Fire). Apple claimed that Amazon's use of the word "Appstore" constituted false advertising and trademark infringement-that Amazon's use of "Appstore" misled the public into thinking that Amazon's Appstore is affiliated with Apple and offers the samecontent.
A federal district court determined that consumers were not deceived by the two vendors' use of the same term. There was no evidence that consumers understood "app store" to include specific qualities, characteristics, or attributes or were otherwise misled by the use of the term.
1. What is required to establish that an ad, or the use of a certain term, as in this case, constitutes falseadvertising?
2. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. What is a material fact? What indicates that a dispute over a material fact isgenuine?