An intellectual property describes a creation that materialized through a concept from the mind. There are four ways through which to protect an invention, brand, valuable information, etc., and that is with the use of patents, trademarks, copyright, and trade secrets. Therefore, with the rule of intellectual property, Divya Narendra, Cameron and Tyler Winkelevoss, if having copyrighted the idea that was conceived in December 2002, then the Harvard Connection and all associated ideas would belong to those three Harvard sophomore students. Intellectual property concerns the idea and not the actions (programming, engineering, or other expertise) which are required to develop the concept.
The person who conceptualized the formula for an invention is more important than those who are hired to complete the task. Such efforts are sometimes costly and time consuming, while programming/coding is a form of expertise and as such should not and cannot rival intellectual ability. It is for those reasons why in my opinion, the idea is worth more than its execution. Who should get the credit for the light bulb, Thomas Edison or General Electric (GE)?
With both parties agreeing that Facebook was liable and was required to settle in the amount of $85 million, which proved ConnectU owners were defrauded. In my opinion, fraud is one the most devious crimes that can be committed and requires careful examination of all evidence. Therefore, a valuation of Facebook’s stock would be admissible during the negotiations. This would lead to a more substantial settlement and supply the necessary payment for ConnectU legal bill.
The burden of proof (which is relative) is on the plaintiff, because that is the party who solicits the courts to assist in litigating against a defendant. However, as demonstrated Conley v. Gibson in 1957, those and preceding standards differed from present standards (PSLRA in 1995), as dismissal of case was only possible if plaintiff could not offer any facts to support a claim (Murray, 2020). However, it later became necessary for plaintiffs to plead more compelling cases. For that to be possible, it necessary plead facts that would demonstrate defendants actions were performed through a required state of mind, which implies there must be specificity regarding the statements alleged against the defendant (Ferrera, 2011). Additionally, there has to be documentation of associated reasons proving a misleading act in a lawsuit.
Wherefore, in order to avoid the possibility of a litigations, possible defendants must ensure that their business practices does not exhibit the potential for fraud, do not provide incorrect statements regarding a material fact, or employ a system that will defraud. These will ensure that whatever is presented through a business is plausible, not misleading, and without ambiguity
ReferencesFerrera, G. R., Reder, M.E. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J.,