Pleasanton Business & Commercial Law Blog

Student loans are the largest form of consumer debt. In 2011, student debt surpassed $1 trillion nationally, which amounts to an average of $17,000 in student loan debt per person. On average, the amount of loan debt a student graduated with in 2010 was $25,250. Unfortunately, unlike almost all other kinds of debt, getting rid of either public or private student loan debt without dying or paying it in full is nearly impossible. In fact, federal loans have not been eligible for discharge in bankruptcy since 1978 and, in 2005, this treatment was extended to private student loans as well.

Specifically, student loan debt can currently only be discharged upon a showing of "undue financial hardship." The usual standard to determine whether an individual has a claim of undue hardship is based on the three-part "Brunner Test." The "Brunner Test" requires a debtor to prove each of the following:

1. Based on current income and expenses, the debtor cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for the debtor and dependents if forced to pay off student loans;

2. Additional circumstances exist indicating that the debtor's current state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and

3. The debtor has made good faith efforts to repay loans.

Courts generally apply the three prongs very stringently. However, a recent court ruling and proposed California and federal legislation may affect the dischargeability of student loans for both Californians and other Americans alike.

Hedlund v. The Educational Resources Institute and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

Nearly ten years after Hedlund initially brought his lawsuit to determine the dischargeability of his student loan debt, on May 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion in Hedlund v. The Educational Resources Institute, Inc., and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. The case may make it easier for student loan debtors to have their student loans discharged in bankruptcy.

In Hedlund, the Ninth Circuit found that the Bankruptcy Court had properly applied the Brunner test when it examined Hedlund's efforts to find a better job and found that his expenses were mostly reasonable. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court also ruled that the Bankruptcy Court correctly examined Hedlund's efforts to negotiate a payment plan, and that his only option would create an undue hardship that would require the then-35 year old Hedlund to make loans until he was at least 65 years old. The recent decision by the Ninth Circuit establishes that debtors may not have to go to extreme efforts to repay their loans, a debtor may have some unreasonable expenses, and a 30-year repayment term may not be reasonable.

Proposed Federal Legislation

The Private Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 532) and The Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2013 (S. 114)

These bills were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in February 2013 and January 2013 respectively. The proposed legislation hopes to have private student loans lumped with all other kinds of debt, making student loan debt fully dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bills would repeal the portion of the 2005 bankruptcy law overhaul, which removed the option for debtors to discharge outstanding private student loans in bankruptcy court. Notably, federal loans would not be impacted by this legislation.

Continue reading "Proposed Legislation and Recent Court Ruling May Expand California Debtors' Abilities to Discharge Their Student Loan Debt " »

The California Legislature is considering various bills relating to privacy that may have far-reaching impacts on California businesses. Some noteworthy bills currently pending include the following:

AB 242: Privacy Policy 100 Words

On February 6, 2013, California Assembly Member Ed Chau introduced legislation that would require commercial websites or online services that collect personally identifiable information to make their privacy policies easier to read. Two ways the bill hopes to achieve this goal is by mandating that the privacy policies be 100 words maximum and written at no greater than an 8th grade reading level. The bill sponsors hope that this will prevent companies from putting legalese into their privacy policies.

AB 319: Websites and online services-Minors

AB 319, introduced by Assembly Member Nora Campos on February 12, 2013, will require website and online service operators that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information from minors to provide notice on the website of what information they are collecting from minors and how the operator uses the information. The bill will also require the website operator to provide specific information to the parent of a minor that has provided the personal information to the website and to give the parent an opportunity to refuse to permit the operator's further use or future collection of personal information from the minor. Essentially, the bill would make it so that any website that collects any information about anyone under the age of 18 would be required under California law to reveal that personal information to parents if requested.

AB 370: Online Tracking Transparency

AB 370 would require website operators to have privacy policies that disclose whether or not they are honoring a consumer's requests to disable online tracking of the individual consumer who uses or visits the commercial website or online service. The bill would also require website operators to disclose whether they have prevented or allowed third parties to use online tracking.

AB 1291: Information-sharing disclosures: "Shine the light"

If passed, AB 1291, also known as The Right to Know Act of 2013 would let consumers find out who has their personal data, and would also allow consumers to get a copy of it. More specifically, AB 1219 would require a company to give users access to the personal data that the company has stored on them when a user requests it within 30 days of the request. The bill would also mandate a company to disclose a list of all third parties with whom it has shared the consumer's data during the previous 12 months, the contact information of such third parties, and the types of personal information that was shared. The law would cover California residents and would apply to both brick and mortar and online companies. If a company does not comply with the requirements, AB 1291 grants California residents the right to file a civil lawsuit to force compliance.

The Right to Know Act hopes to increase transparency by allowing users to track the flow of their data from online interactions. The bill was written to ensure that California companies of all sizes will be able to tell Californians how they are collecting and sharing a consumer's personal data.

Continue reading "Privacy Legislation Pending in California that Could Impact California Businesses and Commercial Website Operators " »

It is well known that in the years leading up to the financial crisis, too many mortgages were made to consumers without taking into account a consumer's ability to repay the loans, contributing to a mortgage crisis that led to a serious recession in the United States.

In response to lessons learned from the financial crisis, the U.S. government implemented a variety of rules and regulations hoping to prevent future crises, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank Act") passed by Congress in 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act requires that for residential mortgages, creditors must make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan.

Most recently, in January 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)--the agency charged with implementing the Dodd-Frank Act--issued a final rule, referred to as the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage rule ("ATR/QM Rule"). The rule, which will go into effect January 2014, not only forces mortgage lenders to consider a consumers' ability to repay home loans before extending them credit, but also establishes a new category of loans that have more stable features called Qualified Mortgages ("QMs"). The new measures do not set minimum down payment amounts or credit score requirements. Finally, although the ATR/QM Rule applies to most mortgage loans, it excludes certain types of loans, including home equity lines of credit, timeshare plans, reverse mortgages, and temporary loans.

Ability-to-Repay Rule

The Ability-to-Repay rule has a variety of features, including the following:

• To qualify for a particular loan, a consumer has to have sufficient assets or income to pay back the loan;
• Lenders must determine a consumer's ability to repay both the principal and the interest over the long term--not just during the introductory period; and
• A potential borrower must supply verifiable financial information to the lender (e.g., W-2, pay stubs)

Specifically, the lender must generally consider the following information:

1) Current or reasonably expected income or assets;
2) Current employment status;
3) The monthly payment for the mortgage;
4) The monthly payment on any other mortgage loans received at the same time;
5) The monthly payment for other mortgage-related expenses (e.g., property taxes)
6) Other debts (e.g., alimony and child support);
7) Monthly debt payments, including the mortgage, compared to consumer's monthly income ("debt-to-income ratio"); and
8) Credit history

Qualified Mortgage Rule

In addition to the new guidelines, the final rule also creates a new category of loans, Qualified Mortgages, where borrowers would be the most protected. A QM cannot include risk features, such as extending beyond 30 years, nor can it include exotic terms like interest-only payment or negative-amortization payments where the principal amount increases. Moreover, a mortgage will only qualify as a QM if the borrower's total monthly debt (including car loans, student loans, credit card debt, etc.) is less than 43% of the borrower's monthly pre-tax income. Finally, mortgages in which fees and points cost more than 3% will not be considered QMs. Temporarily, QMs can also be loans that can be bought by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or insured by certain government agencies, such as the Federal Housing Administration.

Continue reading "Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, Effective January 2014, and Its Potential Impact on Mortgage Lenders and Borrowers " »

On March 8, 2013, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new version of the Form I-9, Employee Eligibility Verification. While employers may continue to use prior versions of the form, dated 02/02/09 and 08/07/09, they may also begin using the newly revised form. Effective May 7, 2013, however, the new Form I-9 is the only version of the form that employers may use.

The Form I-9, which employers are required to fill out for each employee hired, helps employers verify an employee's identity and employment authorization. While there are no substantive changes to the law relating to the Form I-9 process, the USCIS hopes the revised form will minimize errors and enhance form completion.

Key revisions to the Form I-9 include:

• Changing data fields, including one for the employee's foreign passport information (if applicable), telephone number, and email addresses;

• More detailed instructions on completing the form and to the list of acceptable documents; and

• Updating the layout of the form, and expanding it from 1 to 2 pages (not including the form instructions and list of acceptable documents)

Notably, if an employer already has a completed Form I-9 on file for a current employee, the employee is not required to fill out a new form. In addition, employers do not need to submit the Form I-9 form to the federal government, but instead are required to keep them on file for three years after the date of hire or one year after the date of the employee's termination, whichever is later.

Any employer that fails to use the new Form I-9 and/or fails to use the form properly, may be subject to civil penalties.

Aside from the Form I-9, there are a variety of other forms that employers should make sure are filled out after each new hire, including but not limited to the required tax forms and reports of all new hires and rehires.

Report to Your State's New Hire Reporting Program

All California employers are required to report information about newly hired and re-hired employees to the California New Employee Registry within 20 days of an employee's start date. This includes all businesses, state and local government employers, nonprofit organizations, and household employers, regardless of the number of employees.

Specifically, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) requires employers to submit the following documents:

• Employer's business name, contact person name, address, phone number, California employer account number, and Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN).

• Employee's full name, social security number, address, and start-of-work date.

There are a variety of reporting formats available to employers reporting new employee information:

1) Submit a Report of New Employee(s) (DE 34) either electronically using e-Service for Business or obtaining a paper copy of the Report and submitting it to the EDD via mail or fax.

2) Submit a copy of the employee's W-4 form. If you do this, keep in mind that you must add the employee's start date, your California employer account number, and the Federal Identification Number to the W-4.

3) You may create your own form as long as it contains all of the required information.

Continue reading "Important Forms, including the Newly Revised I-9 Form, that All California Employers Must Fill Out After Hiring New Employees" »

As of January 2013, eleven states, including California, and the District of Columbia, had all passed legislation allowing benefit corporations. Notably, the State of California instituted two new types of stock corporations effective January 1, 2012--a "flexible purpose corporation" and a "benefit corporation" (also referred to as a "B corporation"). These two new types of corporations serve as alternatives to the traditional "C," "S" or 501(c)(3) corporations.

With the exception of 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations, prior to the additions of the B Corporation and flexible purpose corporation, the primary purpose of corporations had to be to maximize profit for its shareholders. In fact, prior to the advent of these two new types of corporations, a corporation's shareholders could sue the corporation if the corporation took the environment, community employees, vendors--essentially anything other than maximizing profits--into account when making business decisions.

B Corporations

A benefit corporation is a form of for-profit charity. To qualify as a benefit corporation, a corporation must have a specific purpose: to create a "general public benefit," which is defined as a "material positive impact on society and the environment." In addition, B corporations are held to a different standard of accountability. Whereas traditional "C" and "S" corporations must make business decisions based on maximizing profits, directors and officers of B corporations must consider the effect of decisions on shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, the community, and the environment when making decisions.

Finally, these corporations must maintain certain levels of transparency and public accountability above and beyond the transparency required of traditional corporations. All B corporations must publicly report on their social and environmental performances using established third-party standards. Specifically, a B corporation must publish for public review and inspection a "Benefit Report." The report must detail its performance over the past year in reaching its mission on both environmental and social dimensions. Existing companies can elect to change into a B corporation with a two-thirds majority vote of its shareholders.

According to the non-profit corporation B Lab, there are currently over 500 B corporations across the United States and Canada, a number that has grown exponentially since 2008. Some current examples of these companies include Bay Area companies Method Products, Inc., Moving Forward Education, Change.org, Core Foods, and Bison Brewing Company, and companies with national reach, including Etsy, Ben & Jerry's, and Patagonia.

Flexible Purpose Corporations

Similarly, a flexible purpose corporation also allows a corporation to identify a legitimate corporate purpose beyond maximizing shareholder value. A flexible purpose corporation can choose a purpose that generally benefits society (e.g., a public or charitable purpose) to identify in its corporate documents, thus allowing it to have its own special purpose. Like a B corporation, a flexible purpose corporation must also publish an annual report disclosing how it is achieving its own special purpose.

The key difference between a flexible purpose corporation and a B corporation is that a B corporation must consider the environment, community, employees and suppliers when making decisions, whereas a flexible purpose corporation can identify one legitimate corporate purpose beyond just maximizing shareholder value.

Continue reading "An Introduction to California Benefit and Flexible Purpose Corporations " »

In September 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1186 into law, which attempts to reform California's disability access laws. The law is aimed at helping businesses comply with the American Disabilities Act ("ADA") and hopes to curb ADA lawsuits against small businesses in California. In addition, according to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, one of the bill's sponsors, SB 1186 will provide incentives for business owners to fix the violations and enhance accessibility. Though the new legislation tightens disability access laws to further reduce past abuses and protect business and property owners against frivolous lawsuits, the law also imposes additional obligations on building property owners and tenants. Below is a summary of some of the provisions contained within SB 1186.

Demand Letters and Advisories

Effective January 1, 2013, SB 1186 places limits on the contents of demand letters sent by lawyers to property owners or tenants alleging that a business premise is not fully accessible. First, pursuant to the new law, lawyers are prohibited from sending "demand for money" letters to business owners or tenants, requesting payment from business owners in exchange for an agreement to not file a lawsuit. These demand letters must also state sufficient facts for a "reasonable person" to identify the basis of the claim. More specifically, these letters must:

• State the particular barrier their client faced;
• Indicate the date the barrier was encountered;
• Describe how the barrier interfered with their client's full access or deterred them from visiting the business;
• Include the attorneys' California State Bar Number; and
• Be sent to both the State Bar and the California Commission on Disability Access

In addition to any demand letter sent, SB 1186 also requires attorneys to send an advisory letter, listing any alleged construction-related violations, at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit. The Judicial Council will update a form that may be used by attorneys to comply with the new advisory requirements by July 1, 2013. In the meantime, attorneys will likely send these advisories in the form of a letter. These advisories must provide certain information to property owners, including but not limited to the owner's legal rights and obligations, websites where information can be found on how to comply with disability laws, and a statement advising the owner to seek advice of legal counsel and contact their insurance carrier.

If you receive a demand letter or advisory, it is important to make sure that the letter satisfies each of these requirements. If an attorney fails to comply, he or she may be subject to disciplinary action by the State Bar of California.

Continue reading "New Disability Access Law Reform and its Impact on Small Business and Commercial Property Owners in California " »

A recent California Court of Appeal decision highlights that a board of director's discretion under the business judgment rule is by no means absolute. The "business judgment rule" ("BJR") generally protects a corporate director from his or her business decisions when made in good faith, with due care and inquiry, and in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the company's best interest. The rule is based on the fact that the directors, not the courts, are in the best position to determine whether a particular act is beneficial to the organization. However, this does not mean that directors are protected from all decisions they make that turn out badly.

In fact, in January of this year, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that California Dairies, Inc.'s ("Cal Dairies") board of directors (the "Board") exceeded its discretion when it instituted a quota system that breached its contractual obligations to its members. Plaintiff John Scheenstra was a member of Cal Dairies, a member-owned milk marketing and processing cooperative. Any time a member joins the cooperative, he or she agrees to be bound by the cooperative's bylaws, which thereby creating a contract between Cal Dairies and each of its members.

In 2007, the Board established an internal quota system based on the discretionary authority granted to it in its bylaws to institute such a system. The system was put in place to reduce milk production in anticipation of overproduction. When the Board instituted this system, it was aware that there was an industry-wide oversupply of milk and that other cooperatives had adopted similar programs to reduce milk production by its members. Claiming that the quota was too low and was causing him hardship, Scheenstra subsequently filed suit against Cal Dairies alleging, among other things, breach of contract. He relied on a contract provision that obligated Cal Dairies to implement a quota system equitably and on a uniform basis based on representative years of production. The trial court sided with Scheenstra and found that the BJR did not shield Cal Dairies from liability for breach of contract.

Cal Dairies appealed and the Court of Appeal granted review, focusing on, among other things, whether the Board could seek the protection of the BJR and whether it acted within the scope of its discretionary authority. The court concluded that Cal Dairies could seek the protection of the California BJR since it is organized as a corporation.

Continue reading "California Court of Appeals Finds that Business Judgment Rule Will Not Protect Board Decisions that Contravene Corporation's Private Contractual Obligations: Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc." »

On January 29, 2013, the California Building Standards Commission announced the adoption of the 2013 California Building Standards Code ("CBSC" or "Code"). By law, the public is given 180-days (six months) to review the new code before it goes into effect. Although the new code will not be published until July 1, 2013 and does not go into effect until January 1, 2014, California property owners can get a head start now by learning about some of these changes early. Since the changes to the CBSC will impact both newly constructed buildings and homes, and additions and alterations to older buildings, California commercial and residential property owners will likely be affected by these changes.

The adoption of the 2013 Code comes after a multi-state agency and stakeholder update of the 2010 building codes. Specifically, the Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of the State Architect, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Office of the State Fire Marshal, Department of Public Health, the California Energy Commission, industry stakeholders and members of the public all participated in the development of the new code. In making these revisions, the California Building Standards Commission Director, Jim McGowan, stated that the Commission's objective is "to produce a practical building code that ensures public safety first and foremost while implementing the most efficient technology available to conserve the state's natural resources and energy use". He added, "California's building code is applied to virtually every commercial and residential structure in the state."

Among the important updates to the 2013 Code:

• An extensive update of California's Energy Code;
• Updated California Green Building Code--CALGreen--requirements for nonresidential building alterations and additions;
• Division of the State Architect's adoption of the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act standards with California amendments;
• New plumbing code provisions pertaining to greywater and rainwater catchments.

Updates to California's Energy Code and California Green Building Code

The updated standards will improve upon the 2008 California Energy Code Standards and will implement a number of state energy policy directives, including but not limited to, the following:

• GreenHouseGas (GHG) considerations, since building are second only to transportation in producing GHG emissions. Legislation and executive orders have established goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
• New building standards must achieve "net zero energy" levels by 2020 for residential property and by 2030 for commercial buildings.
• The Green Building Standards Code calls for graded efficiency levels of 15 percent and 30 percent more rigorous than the previous mandatory standards. Although the goals are merely voluntary on a statewide basis, local jurisdictions may elect to adopt the Green Building Standards Code as mandatory at the local level.

In addition, the changes emphasize several essential areas to improve the energy efficiency not only of new constructions, but also additions and alterations of existing buildings. These changes will help reduce electricity demand reductions during critical peak periods and enable simple and efficient future solar system installations.

Some of the most important changes to the standards affecting efficiency are those proposed for windows, the building envelope (wall, ceiling and floor) insulation and the testing of HVAC systems. Moreover, changes for all building types include mandatory requirements for windows and building envelopes.

Continue reading "Adoption of the 2013 California Building Standards Code and its Potential Impact on Residential and Commercial Property Owners " »

Ruling on the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained within a confidentiality and noncompetition agreement signed as a condition of employment, the U.S. Supreme Court once again reiterated its position that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is the supreme law of the land, giving it priority over any conflicting state law or policy.

In Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard, two employees entered into confidentiality and noncompetition agreements as conditions of their employment. The agreements each contained a provision that mandated that any dispute between Nitro-Lift and its employees be resolved through arbitration. After the two employees quit their employment with Nitro-Lift, they both went to work for one of Nitro-Lift's competitors, thereby breaching their noncompetition agreements. Nitro-Lift filed an arbitration claim alleging breach of contract. The employees filed suit in an Oklahoma state court, seeking to have the agreements deemed unenforceable under state law.

The trial court ordered the to case to arbitration, finding that since the agreements contained valid arbitration clauses, an arbitrator, not the court, had to determine the enforceability of the noncompetition agreements. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the existence of an arbitration clause does not prohibit judicial review of the underlying agreement. The court then found that the enforceability of a noncompetition is a matter of state law, ultimately determining that the noncompetition agreements were "unenforceable as against Oklahoma's public policy."

The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and vacated the Oklahoma's Supreme Court decision, finding that the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision plainly "disregard[ed] this Court's precedent on the FAA." Notably, the court cited to a previous U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed that the FAA "declares a national policy favoring arbitration" and that the substantive law created by the FAA is applicable in both state and federal courts.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Reminds States that the Federal Arbitration Act is the Law of the Land: Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard" »

The California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") has issued an internal directive to start broker office surveys ("BOS") in 2013. A BOS will include unannounced and unscheduled visits to brokers' officers and an audit of random files that the DRE requests. Although the California DRE has always conducted random audits, they were previously scheduled in advance so that the broker had time to get files and records organized. However, with this change, brokers will now need to be ready at a moment's notice for a surprise visit from the DRE.

These visits are meant to ensure a broker's residential real estate business activities are in compliance with the laws and regulations administered by the DRE. If you are a broker, you should anticipate that the DRE will ask to see records from various transactions or random files if they visit. All brokers need to be prepared for a potential BOS as they were scheduled to begin at the start of 2013.

According to the DRE, the most common violations found during a BOS, include violations relating to the following:

• Licensing Compliance
• Trust Account Compliance
• Supervision
• Required Disclosures
• Record Keeping

Continue reading "California Department of Real Estate to Begin Broker Office Surveys in 2013 " »

California businesses often find themselves needing to investigate potential mergers and acquisitions, along with business formation issues when they decide to start new endeavors. Recently, well-known computer maker Dell announced that it had acquired California-based Gale Technologies Inc., although exact financial details were not released. Additionally, Dell announced the business formation of an Enterprise Systems & Solutions firm that would be focused upon topologies and solutions for enterprise and converged workloads.

Gale Technologies was founded back in 2008. At last report, the company boasted 75 employees, which may seem a small number when compared to the larger firm which acquired it. Dell is actually the world's third largest manufacturer of computers. Its acquisition of Gale Technologies was the seventh such purchase made by Dell this year. The computer maker seems poised to redesign itself into a firm able to provide a full array of technology services.

Continue reading "Dell buys California Gale Tech, announces new business formation" »

The state of California is being sued by the California Chamber of Commerce stemming from the state's plan to auction off carbon allowances. That auction marks a crucial part of the state's intention to reduce greenhouse gas pollution in its jurisdiction. The Chamber of Commerce initiated its business litigation in state court, alleging that the auction would constitute an unconstitutional fee or inappropriate tax.

The state, on the other hand, issued a statement indicating that it had no intention to call off its planned auction. Some industry insiders believe that putting off the state's first auction could spell further trouble for an already weak market as far as carbon futures go. The rates for 2013 carbon allowances have already fallen substantially just since the start of August because of various issues such as rule changes, legal threats and political opposition.

Continue reading "California faces carbon emissions business litigation" »

Julia Child is a name that's well known in culinary circles. But, culinary prowess aside, her name is also synonymous with business success. Child is so well known that the very use of her name could be considered an infringement on intellectual property rights. The maker of Thermador ovens has filed a lawsuit fighting for its right to use Child's name. The case was recently transferred to California because of related lawsuits pending in the state.

Purportedly, BSH Home Appliances Corporation (the maker of Thermador ovens) is using Julia Child's image and name without obtaining legal permission from the Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts. Advertisements released by BSH make reference to Child and her use of Thermador ovens while also presenting the late chef's image. Some believe this is an infringement on intellectual property rights.

Continue reading "Lawsuit in California addresses intellectual property rights" »

In the California business world, intellectual property can certainly be a hot topic. Companies with intellectual property assets like patents, copyrights and trademarks must often vigorously defend those resources. One recent patent infringement lawsuit pits California-based Apple Inc. against a company called VirnetX Holding Corp., which is based in a different state.

VirnetX filed a complaint in a U.S. District Court alleging that Apple has violated four of their patents. The patents relate to using a domain-name service in order to establish virtual private networks (VPN). This process allows website owners to interact with their consumers in a method that is more secure. Alternatively, a company's employees may be able to access files from their work computers while they are working at a home computer in their own personal residence.

Continue reading "California-based Apple accused of patent infringement" »

Many Alameda County residents take their love of sports seriously. Contract disputes rarely affect a sports enthusiast's ability to enjoy watching their favorite sports teams duke it out, but one recent disagreement may do just that for Lakers basketball fans. If Time Warner doesn't resolve the contract dispute between it and several other providers, sports bars and individual satellite subscribers across the state who do not have access to Time Warner services may miss out on the majority of Lakers games this season.

Reportedly, Time Warner has the rights to broadcast Lakers games for the next 20 years. While some of the other networks--like ABC, ESPN and TNT--have the rights to show a combined total of 25 games this season, that means that Time Warner may be the only provider allowed to broadcast the other 57 Lakers games. Sports bars who do not have access to Time Warner services in their individual areas are understandably displeased with this possibility.

Continue reading "Time Warner contract disputes could leave Lakers fans in lurch" »