Week 8 BOC: Progression on Final Project

        I always have great questions after it is already too late. Meaning I haven't put too much thought into pinpointing a lawyer until I've thought of a few great questions to ask him. Unlike everyone else, I feel as though that there is a such thing as a stupid question, and that is what is bothering me about this assignment. The fact that I will have to talk to a professional about something that I barely know anything about.

Week 7 EOC: Lawyers

1.) Borghese Legal, Ltd. 
 (702) 382-0200

2.) Preston Sterling Kerr
(702) 608-0835  3.) Marquis Aurbach Coffing P.C. 702-979-2405

4.) Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd
702-800-3362

5.) Baron & Pruitt, LLP 
 702-870-3940

6.) Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski A Professional Corporation
888-614-6103

7.) Kenehan & Lambertsen Limited
 702-997-1732

8.) The Amin Law Group
702-990-3583

9.) Payne & Fears LLP
 702-382-3574

10.) Kolesar & Leatham
 702-997-8358

Week 6 EOC: Illicit Trade

        I believe that illicit trade is a large "problem" that is probably too complex for the average person to grasp. I don't know much about trade and the economy, but I do know that "stealing" or counterfeiting is extremely frowned upon. We were asked the question earlier that if we could buy something that was fake, but for a cheaper price would we buy it.
        I'm just going to use a DSLR as an example, since I am a filmmaker and lenses and cameras are things that I'm very much into. Clothes I cannot grasp the importance of, but lenses and cameras can last a hell of a lot longer than a piece of fabric, but I am getting off topic. So, let's just say that someone offered me a camera that had the same quality as a 7D, blackmagic camera, or a Lumix HG for a fraction of the price. I would not hesitate to jump at the chance. Okay, let me be honest and say that I would probably be a little hesitant about the quality.
      Some argue that the problem with buying things that are fake is that you have no idea on how the product came to be. The argument presented is that a lot of "knock off" products are covered in dirty money and blood. But how many of us know how much blood, sweat, and dirty money goes into our legitimate purchases. Who says that just because you walked into a Louis Vutton store that it doesn't have the stench of some sinister practice behind it.
      I believe as consumers, we are prone to aesthetics, which seems to win us over every time, and helps us get to sleep a little bit better at night. How many faithful shoppers would still shop at Prada had they found out about a few little dirty deals done in the back room? Everyone that's who.

Week 5: EOC Patent Trolls

     Upon reading the patent troll article which illustrates what seems to be a very tedious task of discovering outdated patents, I've come to the conclusion that some people have way too much time on their hands. The issue of outdated patents wouldn't be a problem for the companies involved if they weren't making as much money as they do. So what are they supposed to do? Not make a profit so they can be under the radar of pesky patent trolls.
   
     On the other hand, I can see how the mindset of letting the little fish go can become catastrophic. If you let companies get away with expired patents on little things, it's only a matter of time before they gradually stop keeping up to date on their big things.
    
     This realization does not excuse the behavior of patent trolls. Reading about the situation in the article makes it seem like a hobby. I imagine people going around town to different stores and inspecting everything from paper clip packaging to bundles of yarn. My question begs to be answered. Is it really that critical? The man, Stauffer, who noticed the bow tie with the expired patent on it most likely admired the tie before he decided there was something wrong with it. So why excrete waste on a company whose clothing you admire. Is it because one devotes themselves to the law so devoutly or is it something else.

    I think that there are much bigger problems in the world than just simply figuring out which products have expired patents within a company. All of the energy spent doing this could be beneficial for other tasks that are helpful to our community as a whole. Now with this comes a wave of companies who now have to scramble through their products, combing through each and every detail to make sure their patents are up to date, when they could be donating to charities.

Week 2 EOC: Erin Brokovich

The legal issues in the film Erin Brockovich are something that at first seems so simple but quickly becomes so complicated. Corporation wrongs community and makes them sick, which should mean that the corporation should pay right? This is what confuses me and most of the public about legal issues. With this situation it seems as if right and wrong are black and white and that any court would recognize this, but now I see the importance of patents and copyrights and making sure your assets are protected at all costs. It isn't as simple as someone doing wrong and paying for their mistake. PG&E played their situation cleverly. They informed the community of Hinkley, CA of the chemical chromium in the water, but downplayed its negative effects to keep from being sued. Although PG&E ended up paying a settlement of 400 million dollars, it took a while for them to be reigned in. I don't understand anything about legal issues. I have never sued anyone, but I think that Erin Brockovich was very sympathetic to the cause, because she had children of her own and most of the people affected were mostly families. I believe that it goes without saying that corporations do not feel the same.