Discussion reply

Response 1:
chose the New Balance vs. New Boom Chinese trademark case.  New Balance – first introduced sneakers into China in 1995. From that moment, they were fighting copycat companies who were infringing on core shoe designs. Over time companies went as far as copying the New Balance “N” logo. New Balance determined that applying this case against the Chinese anti-unfair competition law would be more effective compared to the Trademark law. New Boom – was the parent company of three different entities, Zheng Chaozhong, Xin Ping Heng Sporting Goods Limited Company, and Bo Si Da Ke Trading Limited. New Boom believes they should not be held responsible since they registered a trademark first. Case results: New Balance was awarded 1.5 million dollars based on “seized market share from New Balance” and “drastically damaged the business reputation of New Balance” (Wee, 2017). I do agree that with the decision of the court. New Balance was losing market share to companies who were directly stealing intellectual property. How else would New Balance be able to compete with a company who sells the same exact shoe but at a lower rate? If this case were tried in America, the decision would be the same however the penalty fee would be much higher.
******************************************************************
Response 2:
I’d like to discuss the stormy legal period that Facebook currently face. Cambridge Analytica scandal which recently caused Mark Zuckerberg testify before Congress for two days straight (Forbes). Not only it could be uncomfortable for Zuckerberg and volatile for FB stock price, but it also sparked a series of lawsuits because of that. Facebook is facing more than three dozen class action lawsuits over Cambridge Analytica on behalf of millions of users for private data abuse and losses due to the stock price drop (Fortune).   Earlier this month, John Condelles has filed a lawsuit against Facebook over getting phone calls and sms logs from Android Messenger App without users authorization and awareness. As soon as Android users were to choose Facebook Messenger as their default SMS App, Facebook would store data for the duration, date of calls (incoming & outcoming), numbers dialed, etc.   These might be classified as a fraudulent business practice and despite there is no decision on this case yet, I think the company has truly violated user’s privacy and has to take the responsibility. What strikes me after this research is that despite understanding that company has planned to abuse private data of its own users, people would still use the service.