As a business law student, I am always quick to take note of interesting lawsuits and cases that I can analyze.  Today was no exception, as I picked out an intellectual property suit that I read about in the New York Times.  In a country where people tend to sue over just about anything, we find that the line between a valid suit and a ridiculous suit is becoming extremely blurred.  One of the most confusing aspects of law tends to be that of intellectual property.  While we see intellectual property suits over many different areas of life, I had never considered the fact that someone might sue over the menu of a restaurant.  To clarify, I mean the actual preparation of the food on the menu.  A chef at a New York City restaurant has filed an intellectual property suit against another New York City restaurant for allegedly copying its decoration, lay out, and among other things, its salad dressing. 

This case opens up an interesting avenue for discussion, beginning with the issue of deciding who a food item actually belongs to.  I know from firsthand experience that the internet makes cooking much easier.  The large databases of recipes to be found are an excellent resource for someone who wants to try something new.  However, if you cook the food, does it belong to you?  This lawsuit seems to be arguing that it does not.  Under the pretenses of this lawsuit, you cannot profit from using someone else’s recipe.  This bothers me, simply because food is food, and there are only a few ways to make certain dishes.  I happen to love scrambled eggs with American cheese.  I crack three eggs, scramble them, and place singles of American cheese on top.  However, when I get this in restaurants, I do not sue them for violating my intellectual property rights.  Sure they may have been doing it first, but I know for a fact I didn’t steal the recipe from them.  Conversely, if they ever saw me cooking at home, they wouldn’t assume I was stealing theirs either.  Also, consider bake sales.  Generally, people pull out a cookbook or grab a recipe online to bring to the bake sale.  Are they infringing intellectual property rights because they are selling what they have created using someone else’s recipe?  It’s certainly an interesting idea. 

I realize that a restaurant stealing from another restaurant is a tad bit different from the above scenarios, especially when the chef who allegedly stole the recipes and such originally worked under the chef filing suit.  It just seems to me that food preparation should not be allowed to fall under intellectual property.  Also, intangibles like restaurant color scheme and layout seem to be a stretch as well.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)

After a 22 day hiatus, I am finally back to blogging on a reguloar basis.  I apologize for taking off like that, but life got busy as I am sure most of you understand.  Blogging has always been a pleasure to me, but life off the computer always comes first. 

Popularity: 6% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War of 1967.  The war between Israel and its Arab neighbors has had lasting political and social effects that still divide the region today.  The Six Day War was the result of a large arms build up by Egypt, Jordan, and the other Middle East countries.  Israel, sensing the impending conflict, launched a quick strike at Egypt and sparked a very lopsided war.  Despite the terrible odds Israel was dealt while fighting six other nations that surround it, the Jewish state emerged triumphant, winning various territories like the Golan Heights, Eastern Jeruslaem, the Gaza Strip, and more.  Essentially, the war solidified the future existence of Israel in the region. 

My father’s side of the family is Jewish, so naturally I am a strong supporter of Israel.  I believe that Jews need a place to call home, and are entitled to the land they now call their own.  In fact, I often say that I would fight only to protect the United States and Israel.  Jews have been hated and despised since their beginning.  There has never been any rhyme or reason to it.  I understand the aggressiveness of Israel in protecting themselves against threats because Jews have never had a true home.  On the other hand, I am extremely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.  Every issue needs to be looked at from both sides, and the Palestinians deserve sympathy as well.  I know that I would be furious if a foreign government just converted my homeland of a thousand years to a state controlled by another religion.  The problem is that Palestinians are going about fighting it in the wrong way.  Their constant terrorism and suicide bombing has lost any support the rest of the world might want to give, and they continue to do it even as they have been given their own state.  It is as though all they care about is attaining an unreasonable goal with no will to compromise.  The fact is that Israel will exist because the rest of the world, excluding the Arab nations, is behind it.  Even now, the Palestinian state is in ruins because of the constant fighting between factions.  Sooner or later, they need to realize that cooperation will help them become a prosperous state, or else they were better off with Israel. 

Popularity: 9% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)

It’s funny how sometimes we think grudges are dead because they haven’t surfaced for a few years, or even decades.  Throughout my education, we had always been taught about the Cold War and how it was laid to rest with the break up of the USSR.  Despite calm and peace of the last 15 years, it seems to me as though we still involved in the Cold War. 

Recent events have put America and Russia at each others throat again, and having two presidents with aggressive tendencies certainly isn’t helping.  Putin has been an overbearing and unwavering threat to us since his election to office, whether you look at his politics or his handling of the Chechen rebels. However, most recently we seem to be the aggressor.  Putin threatened to aim missiles at Europe yesterday in response to the US plan to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.  While the response is a VERY threatening one in a day and age where one missile can wipe out a large chunk of England, maybe it is justified.  While this plan of ours entails building missile defense systems, do you know what these missile defense systems are?  Missiles.  We fights missiles with missiles.  The missile “defense” system is really just a series of silos, which could potentially be used to hit Russia very easily with nuclear missiles in the future.  It is obvious that the best defense for missiles is intimidation, and it seems that the US has found an intimidation scheme. 

The funny thing is that this missile defense system is obviously intended for Russia.  Missiles from other nuclear superpowers would never cross over the area that we building these.  I was under the impression that we were trying to form a closer diplomatic relationship with Russia, but here we are provoking them, seemingly out of fear.  What’s next?  A race to mars?

Popularity: 12% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)

Early this morning, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was released from prison after an 8 year term.  I am pretty sure we all remember just who Dr. Kevorkian was, so I’ll spare the background information for now.  Kevorkian was charged with 2nd degree murder in after he helped numerous terminally ill patients to commit suicide.  Given the moniker “Dr. Death”, most Americans thought his crimes were terrible at the time he was sentenced.  Since then, we have seen a great deal of cases that are beginning to swing public opinion in the other direction.  With events like the Terri Schiavo fiasco and the legalization of doctor assisted suicides in Death With Dignity act that was passed in Oregon, our public is more willing than ever to accept assisted suicide out of mercy and with the patient’s permission. 

The interesting thing about Kevorkians release is that people still look down upon him.  While I don’t necessarily agree with Kevorkian’s actions, or the full premise of assisted suicide, I think that Americans are being too harsh on him.  Even this morning, I saw several papers refer to him as Dr. Death (my title is further this point).  It is as though we have branded this man as being the devil incarnate, even as most Americans now agree with what he was doing back then.  It seems to me as though this man is the victim of a great deal of hypocritical malice, mostly generated by the media.  Doctors are now practicing his exact methods in Oregon, yet we don’t recognize him as an important pioneer.  I don’t even fully agree with assisted suicide, but I do regard him as the person who brought this important issue to the forefront of political, social, and ethical discussion.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)

Last night, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs appeared at an interview together for the first time in 20 years.  The two have been competing in the computer market since before I was born, and despite the friendly performance they put on last night, they can’t possibly like each other much.  However, the thing I noticed is that the debate over which brand is better has been picking up lately.  Three years ago, everyone I know was using PC’s.  Now I have a bunch of friends who are always willing to argue that Macs are the holy grail of computing. 

I personally prefer a PC.  I have never had extreme problems with them, and they have always been flexible enough to fit my needs.  I have used Macs before and I find them just as easy to use.  A computer is a computer as far as I am concerned, and I don’t see why people are so quick to argue about which is better.  The annoying thing about all of this is that we are seeing the emergence of Apple fan boys.  These people are so die hard Apple everything when they have only been using an Apple for two years or so.  Why has using a Mac become so trendy?  Is it because of its minority status?  Is it because they tend to look more fashionable than a PC?  Is it because everyone else seems to be switching over?  I can’t figure it out. 

Popularity: 8% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)

I stumbled across this article about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee’s decision to require all morbidly obese people under their coverage to take an IQ test before being covered for a gastric bypass surgery. After reading the article, I found myself asking two questions: 1. Is it right to require that patients have a certain degree of intelligence before recieving a potentially life saving operation? 2. Since many cases of obesity are the result of bad eating habits rather than disorders, should those without a disorder recieve coverage for something they caused themselves?

I do not mean to be insensitive to anyone who is overweight or obese, as I am not a twig myself, but there are certain proven trends in obesity. Obesity tends to be more common in the lower social and economic groups. This is a fact. Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the nation (if not THE poorest) has the highest percentage of obese residents in the US. If you look at the shift in advertising for such fast food chains as McDonald’s and Burger King, you see that more and more commercials are geared towards minorities and teenagers, and often have a rap, hip hop, r&b feel to them. This is hardly a coincidence, as these are the most likely groups to be attracted to cheap food. Unfortunately, in our culture of supersizing, obesity is becoming a huge problem and many people are looking towards gastric bypass as a cosmetic procedure rather than a life saving one.

Insurance companies have an obligation to cover their customers from anything that may befall them outside the realm of their control. Just as burning your house down purposely does not allow you to clain your insurance money, I do not think people with bad eating habits should be able to claim health insurance to finance this operation. People who are eating badly KNOW that continuing on the path they are on will lead them to obesity. This is common knowledge and anyone who does not know this will certainly not pass an IQ test given to them by their insurer. Why should insurance companies reward money to people who could have controlled their weight easily with a little bit of self control? Now, if a customer has a disorder in which they cannot control their weight, they should be allowed full coverage, especially if it is a matter of life and death.

On the issue of the IQ test, first we need to determine if IQ should have anything to do with someone recieving the medical care that they require. I think that requiring someone to be of a certain intelligence before recieveing treatment is blatant discrimination and is just plain wrong. Now, all of this was about medical attention, not about whether the insurance company should pay for these people or not. Of course the insurance company should pay for these people, but I suppose they reserve the right to require this of all people purchasing policies AFTER their change in doctrine. If this is the inevitable decision of the insurance company, I suggest that they make some changes to it. Perhaps instead of requiring an IQ test from everyone, it should only be required from people whose obesity was caused by their own bad eating habits. All people with disorders should recieve the operation with the full insurance coverage. Now from those taking the IQ test, the people on the LOW end of the spectrum should recieve the coverage because they are less likely to be able to realize and understand the consequences of their diet. Those who know the consequences but continue on the path should not recieve coverage.

Of course my proposed idea is discriminating, but it is less discriminating than that put into place by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves, and for most people, obesity is within your control. Should this allow insurance companies to decide whose life they save? Absolutely not. Everyone in America should recieve the medical care they need. Operate first and worry about the money later.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)