Sometimes companies move their corporate headquarters out of their home countries to countries with more favorable tax treatment. Which duty do you believe is higher, the duty of corporations to pay tax to the government or the duty of corporations to pay dividends to shareholders?

 Sometimes companies move their corporate headquarters out of their home countries to countries with more favorable tax treatment. Which duty do you believe is higher, the duty of corporations to pay tax to the government or the duty of corporations to pay dividends to shareholders? 

Actually, I think it is not sometimes, it usually, especially big companies move their corporate headquarters out of their home countries to countries with more favorable tax treatment. In fact, six of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies had a combined tax gap of more than $100 billion this decade, according to a new analysis(Taylor, 2019). The research analyzed Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, and Microsoft between 2010 and 2019 with their 10-K filings, which are financial forms submitted by businesses to the U.S. government. It also claimed that those profits continued to be shifted to tax havens such as Bermuda, Ireland, and Luxembourg. 

So, which duty is higher? The duty of corporations to pay tax to the government or the duty of corporations to pay dividends to shareholders? I believe for corporations the duty of corporations to pay dividends to shareholders is somewhat higher than the duty of corporations to pay tax to the government. Essentially, the basic function of a business is to make a profit for its owners. In a capitalist market-driven economy, a business that fails to make a profit ultimately ceases to exist and ultimately affects the property of its shareholders. If corporations reward their employees with their shares, it also provides incentives to be creative, innovative, and productive. Moreover, it is much easier to seek funding and grow business quickly, which leads to an increase in labor demand and eventually increases the income per household. Higher salaries mean households and individuals have more money to spend and it also means higher income taxes they have to pay. It is a positive circulation for the economy. In addition, many countries have one common problem, corrupt bureaucrats. We are not so sure the taxes we pay are all effectively used in our society or the public good.

However, it does not mean paying taxes to the government is always a bad thing. Governments need resources and funds to keep their basic functions such as infrastructure, roads, parks, airports, electricity, water, and more. These infrastructures are vital elements for operating businesses. Legislative make laws, rules, and regulations to settle disputes between business owners. We also need many authorities to make public policies. A government is a body of people that work to effectively and successfully guide a unit or community. One thing government does is set and administer policy. They use customs, laws, and institutions to exercise political, executive, and sovereign power with the intent of managing a state of wellbeing that benefits all aspects of the community or unit.

To summarize, I reckon that although for corporations the duty of corporations to pay dividends to shareholders is somewhat higher than the duty of corporations to pay tax to the government, paying taxes to the governments is still necessary since they provide some basic elements of conducting businesses. Of course, it's not a major duty, but it's must be part of the duties.

Should the concerns of stakeholders other than shareholders be taken into account by corporations?

First of all, shareholders are one of the stakeholders in a corporation, but stakeholders are not always shareholders. A shareholder owns part of a public company through shares of stock, while a stakeholder has an interest in the performance of a company for reasons other than stock performance or appreciation. A shareholder can be an individual, company, or institution that owns at least one share of a company. Stakeholders, on the other hand, can be owners and shareholders, employees of the company, creditors, customers who may rely on the company to provide a particular good or service, its suppliers, and more. The key difference is that shareholders can trade the stocks and may not have a long-term need for the company, while stakeholders are bound to the company for a long-term period and for reasons of greater need. For example, if a company is performing poorly financially, its employees, who are stakeholders and rely on it for income, might lose their jobs. Due to these reasons, the stakeholder has a greater need for the company to succeed over a longer-term, and therefore, I believe the concerns of stakeholders other than shareholders must be taken into account by corporations.

 

Why are taxes often more of an issue with corporations than with other business entities?

In the US, it’s because other business entities like partnerships, most LLCs, and small businesses are generally pass-through entities where the incidence of taxation passes directly through to the individual owners, while corporations are separate legal entities. Because it is an independent entity, its decision is made by teams, and its taxes payments are affecting directly its net income, corporations' decision-makers tend to use its tax advantages to pay taxes as little as possible.

Reference

Taylor, C. (2019, December 3). Silicon Valley Giants accused of avoiding over $100 billion in taxes over the last decade. CNBC. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/silicon-valley-giants-accused-of-avoiding-100-billion-in-taxes.html 

What should be the extent of rights for employees?

 What should be the extent of rights for employees? 

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employees have a right to not be treated less favorably because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or genetic information, receive equal pay for equal work. Although corporations may gain some challenges due to these regulations, this is also an opportunity to increase their efficiency and production. How? Why? Remember that CSR(corporate social responsibility) benefits entrepreneurs in multiple ways. If we consider the extent of rights for employees as a kind of CSR, it may have many advantages that can apply to any business, regardless of its size includes better brand recognition, positive business reputation, increased sales and customer loyalty, better financial performance, and most importantly, greater ability to attract talent and retain staff which connects directly to the extent of rights for employees. Being a responsible, sustainable business may make it easier to recruit new employees or retain existing ones. Employees may be motivated to stay longer, thus reducing the costs and disruption of recruitment and retraining.

Should an employer be able to terminate an employee at will? 

This question is about balance and freedom. Most employers think they should have the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. However, if we put the laws and the regulations aside, business owners are still liable to take good care of their employees. Why? Because good relationships with employees will make an enterprise even stronger. What Google learned from Goodwill, is that be a good boss and you will attract and keep good workers. Therefore, I reckon that an employer should not terminate an employee at will unless it is necessary. An excellent organization is the result of joint efforts and is also responsible for many families since it provides income. If someone tends to hold it back, it affects and harms those families. So, sometimes it is considered a necessary decision rather than at will. Just like many regulations are for the public good, many people still have to switch their jobs to what they can do best. The environment is changing quickly, changing your skills to adopt it is unavoidable.

What are some potential employer abuses the government should protect employees from?

Most of the abuses that employees could suffer caused by their employers include rejection of a job, being fired or getting your shifts reduced, deny promotion, and not being paid equally. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws banning discrimination in the hiring, firing, salaries, and benefits of job applicants and employees in several work circumstances, employees are less willing to report those issues since they are on the higher side of the scale. So, if governments truly want to protect employees from abuses, it is not enough to only set up regulations. For example, I am pretty sure hiring and firing are both can be "reasonably managed", right? We have seen many unfortunate cases. Rather than just make statements and laws, governments must build a reward system to trigger businesses to actively provide a good working environment and continually keep CSR in the heart of their corporate culture.

Reference

Employee rights. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/employee-rights 

What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of contract employment versus at-will employment for an employer and employee?

 What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of contract employment versus at-will employment for an employer and employee? 

It is necessary to understand different types of employment while doing business since employment is one of the essential parts of doing business. In today’s changing workforce, the use of contract employment has become more and more common. Many companies may frequently hire part-time or full-time staff for budgetary concerns or the need for specialized skills. Contract employment refers to hiring a person for a specific job under particular terms for a fixed period of time. The employment contract for a contract employee summarizes the services to be provided, any reporting requirements, confidentiality clauses, payment terms, how intellectual property will be treated, employment terms, and termination clauses. It is typically accompanied by a statement of work that clearly describes what is to be done, how, when and to what quality standards. An employment contract is a legal document which means it is legally enforceable if it is valid. Therefore, employers must ensure they use contracts that have been prepared or reviewed by a lawyer. On the other hand, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employer engages an employee without a contractual commitment, it is considered employment-at-will, which means the employee can quit anytime, for any reason.

At-Will Employment - The Advantages

For Employers, at-will employment gives companies the flexibility to later adjust their terms and policies rather than bound into a contract. It is also a faster, easier termination process. Firing employees who are under contract with your business typically involves multiple discussions, complicated negotiations, and delays. Hiring at-will is especially helpful in quickly getting rid of employees who are causing serious difficulties. 

For Employees, at-will at-will employment also gives workers the flexibility to switch or change their decisions. However, it offers zero protection to the employees as either party can decide to disengage or change the employment routine, terms, or structure. 

At-Will Employment - The Disadvantages

For employers, at-will employment, employees may unexpectedly quit without notice. Employers will then find themselves scrambling to find their replacement. It is also remarkably difficult to attract top talent since they are likely to choose a more stable job.

For employees, at-will employment involves high uncertainty since there is no contract to protect both of the two parties. And, employers can fire employees due to any lawful reasons. Moreover, if there is an employee who is not able to perform up to the mark then he can be terminated instantly without any reason or cause. Oftentimes, employees may get fired because of an unauthentic reason. 

Contract Employment - The Advantages

For Employers, contract employment is much more stable as both parties are bound in the agreed terms of work such as employees can not move to a better job without completing the contract or void or as agreed on the contract project. Moreover, it is an opportunity to hang onto your best employees. Limit the reasons that an employee can use to leave your company. Also, confidentiality clauses in your contract will prevent employees from disclosing your trade secrets or client lists. Noncompete clause in an employment contract that will prevent former employees from competing with your company for a certain amount of time after their employment ends.

For Employees, the future income is more stable as their employers are bound in the agreed terms of work to pay for their work. Many job seekers get excited that they’ve been hired for a full-time position, until they realize that they hate the job, their employer, or the industry they’re in. By accepting contract employment, employees can try out a sample of jobs and companies to find out what they are good at and where they want to be in the future. 

Contract Employment - The Disadvantages

For employers, sometimes contract employment has some inconsistencies because contracted employees have no solid loyalty to the business and motivation for their job. In addition, if an employee does not turn out how you want, or if the needs of your business change, you will have to renegotiate the employment contract.

For employees in contract employment, they can not move to a better job without completing the contract or void or as agreed on the contract project. So, it is an opportunity cost.

Is it appropriate for governments to interfere with private businesses to prevent discrimination? In what situations do you believe the government should intervene to prevent discrimination? 

Fighting discrimination requires setting standards for both individual and collective behavior, ultimately creating some consequence for violating them. Typically, the governments provide critical pathways to participation in setting such standards, as well as to recourses when they are not met. Without these systems, employees would have to rely on the good intentions of employers within the private sector who are largely unaware of their biases. 

I reckon it is appropriate for governments to interfere with private businesses to prevent discrimination. If the purpose is for the public good and fair, then it is necessary. However, the question is, HOW? It is like a chess game. The rules are set to play fairly to produce a winner. The time for the government to interfere is when some parties break the laws or like the game when one party tries to win it unfairly and breaks the rule. The governments' position is like, "we don't want to limit the ideas of how to win the game, we just trying to ensure everyone's victory is legal and fair.

Why do you think many governments guarantee a right to collective bargaining and the right to strike? Are there appropriate limits that should be placed on these rights?

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike(The right to strike). Collective bargaining refers to the negotiation process between an employer and a union comprised of workers to create an agreement that will govern the terms and conditions of the workers' employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement, governed by federal and state statutory laws and administrative agency regulations.

I think if the governments do not guarantee a right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, employers, therefore, do not have the liabilities to conduct ethically and eventually harm the country and the society as a whole. In addition, the right to strike is like the right to freedom. If you are unfairly treated or even tortured, absolutely you have the right not to work for such a flaming company. Most of the time, employees are considered to be the frail side of the bargain with their employers. Therefore, they desire the governments to be with them since providing safety is one of the most important functions of governments.

However, the law not only guarantees the right of employees to strike but also places limitations and qualifications on them. For example, the lawfulness of a strike may depend on the object, or purpose, of the strike, on its timing, or on the conduct of the strikers. A strike in support of a union unfair labor practice, or one that would cause an employer to commit an unfair labor practice, might be a strike for an unlawful object. Moreover, a strike that violates a no-strike provision of a contract is not protected by the law, and the striking employees can be terminated or otherwise disciplined unless the strike is called to protest certain kinds of unfair labor practices committed by the employer. 

CASE IN POINT

Finally, I want to mention the case of Amazon's new CEO. After Jeff Bezos quit his job as the CEO of Amazon, the board plans to award the new CEO, Andy Jassy 61,000 Amazon shares in extra stock, which will pay out over 10 years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The award’s exact value will depend on how the shares are trading when they pay out in future years, encouraging Jassy to grow the company even more than it is today. Jassy’s base salary has been $US175,000, according to the filings. As we can see that it was a good example of contract employment. The prize in shares is also a great example of how to provide an incentive to work harder for both the employees and employers.

Reference

Dastin, J. (2021, July 4). Amazon to grant new CEO more than $US200 million in stock. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/amazon-to-grant-new-ceo-jassy-more-than-us200-million-in-stock-20210705-p586st.html 

The Pros and cons of hiring at-will employees. Business News Daily. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15833-hire-at-will-employees.html 

The right to strike. The Right to Strike | National Labor Relations Board. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes 

THE AGE DISCRIMINATION

 THE AGE DISCRIMINATION

WHAT IS THE AGE DISCRIMINATION?

Age discrimination can take many forms. It can include an employer refusing to hire older workers in the first place, or firing employees once they reach a certain age. It involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of their age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older but does not include workers under the age of 40. However, it is not illegal for an employer to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older. Discrimination may also occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40. The law prohibits discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, benefits, and any other term or condition of employment(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Age discrimination). 

COVERAGE OF THE ACT

Depending on the type of employer and the kind of discrimination alleged, the coverage requirements for private employers, the States and local governments, the Federal government agencies, employment agencies, and the Labor unions or Joint Apprenticeship Committees. If an employer is included in the list of the required number of employees, the employee, the job applicant, the former employee, the applicant, and the participant in a training or apprenticeship program are protected by the anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, American workers employed by U.S. companies overseas are also protected by the anti-discrimination laws.

APPROPRIATE SITUATION TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON AGE

Is it ever appropriate to discriminate based on age? Yes, sometimes, many hiring decisions are based on age. But, it depends on the circumstances and it has to be very careful and fair. These circumstances must be based on reasonable factors. Normally, employers are not allowed to purely consider an applicant's age when making hiring decisions. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule. For instance, a film Company may decide to hire an aged man to play Ichirō Yashida in The Wolverine or a young lady to play Beth Harmon in The Queen's Gambit. Some age discrimination was even in the federal regulations. An airline company cannot hire a 65-year-old applicant for a commercial passenger pilot job simply because the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration imposes a mandatory retirement age of 65 for these positions.

INAPPROPRIATE SITUATION TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON AGE

Federal law does not prohibit employers from asking an applicant's age or date of birth. However, employers should ensure that they ask about age only for a lawful purpose. As we know that, in general, companies can not consider an applicant's age when making hiring decisions. Most employers often assume that an older candidate is less healthy than a younger candidate, believing older workers are less healthy in general or even less productive and less innovative. However, it is just a bias and discrimination. For instance, is a CEO like Elon Musk less productive and less innovative than young people because he is over 50? The answer is absolutely not. Suppose you are in your 40s and try to work for STARBUCKS as a barista, can STARBUCKS refuse to hire you purely based on your age? No. However, the interviewer may require you to pass a test associated with the position that can be difficult for you to legally and implicitly deny your claim.

OLDER PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED AS A CLASS? 

Race and color were the earliest protected classes, according to The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981 of the Act barred discrimination in the making of contracts on the basis of race and color, which is understood to include employment contracts. So, when does a person fall into a protected class that the law recognizes? Under federal law, employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. Therefore, employers may consider membership in a protected class when making employment decisions if there is a business necessity for doing so, or if membership in a protected class is a bona fide occupational qualification. Under the law, the protected class for age is people aged 40 and older, not "older people". 

HOW THE LAWS PROTECTING OLDER PEOPLE FROM DISCRIMINATION WORK? 

In the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs. Moreover, the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for job performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise desirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Age discrimination). The purpose of such Acts is to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age and to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment. It also helps employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment. 

In the employer practices, it is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual concerning his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of age. To limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age are also prohibited.

In the labor organization practices, it is unlawful for a labor organization to exclude its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his age. And, to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or refuse to hire any individual and tend to deprive any individual of employ­ment opportunities because of such individual's age are all prohibited. In addition, attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section is also an unlawful practice. Employment agencies to cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any referral for employment by such a labor organi­zation based on age are strictly prohibited.

Additionally, it is also unlawful for any employment agency or labor organization to take any action otherwise prohibited where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the par­ticu­lar business. Such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance with such subsections would cause such employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located and permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by the age.

In the practices of foreign corporations controlled by American employers, employee pension benefit plans, distribution of benefits after attainment of normal retirement age, it shall be unlawful for an employer, an employment agency to establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan which requires or permits in the case of a defined benefit plan, the cessation of an employee's benefit accrual, or the reduction of the rate of an employee's benefit accrual, because of age.

In the case of any employee who, as of the end of any plan year under a defined benefit plan, has attained normal retirement age under such plan if distribution of benefits under such plan with respect to such employee has commenced as of the end of such plan year, then any requirement of this subsection for continued accrual of benefits under such plan associate with such employee during such plan year shall be treated as satisfied to the extent of the actuarial equivalent of in-service distribution of benefits.

Finally, whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with a duly authorized representative of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission while it is engaged in the performance of duties under this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both: Provided, however, That no person shall be imprisoned under this section except when there has been a prior conviction hereunder. In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law banning discrimination in employment because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based.

REFERENCE

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Ed.). (n.d.). Age discrimination. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Ed.). (n.d.). Hiring decisions based on age. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/hiring-decisions-based-age 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Coverage. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/coverage-0 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). The age discrimination in employment act of 1967. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967 

Patenting Oranisms

 INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, scientists have isolated genes that cause particular diseases and modified genes that alter organisms for particular reasons. The technology has been manipulated to allow scientists to alter DNA by adding to or changing targeted sections. By doing so, scientists hope to eliminate genetic diseases. The mention of gene editing may invoke up images of rampaging dinosaurs in the film, Jurassic World, but this image is far from the truth. The closest to the truth about the rampaging dinosaurs is watching the endless Jurassic Park franchise. In general, the predominating opinion is that it is almost impossible to patent a living being. This pre-conceived notion is often based on grounds such as the lack of novelty, how can you patent something that already exists in nature, or unsurprisingly, the ethical impediments. However, whether it is possible to patent a living being, depends on the type of living being and the territory in which protection is to be obtained. Putting the ethical quagmire of human gene editing to one side, the realities of animal gene editing through the CRISPR technology is debated in terms of de-extinction and conservation. On October 18, 2016, a biopharmaceutical company called CRISPR Therapeutics AG that focused on translating CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology into transformative medicines, announced the pricing of its IPO. It is a type of technology based on the natural functioning of bacteria called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, abbreviation as CRISPR. the CRISPR/Cas9 edits genes by precisely cutting DNA and then letting natural DNA repair processes to take over. The system consists of two parts: the Cas9 enzyme and a guide RNA. The technology applied in modified bacteria to defend against invading viruses by remembering the genetic codes of previous invaders. If attacked again, the remembered code allows the bacteria to target the viruses’ DNA and disable the virus. Ethically sensitive and scientifically thrilling, CRISPR technology is sparking international debates that aren’t likely to be readily resolved. Whether the answer is to bring back extinct species or focus on those currently under threat, scientists are delving into gene editing as a way of repairing a damaged world. 

The CRISPR PATENT DISPUTE

As we learned above, much has been written about the power of CRISPR, the genetic-editing system first elucidated in 2012. But there has also been extensive interest in the variety of intellectual property issues surrounding CRISPR. While the intellectual property disputes concerning CRISPR are far from over, new characters central to the dispute continue to materialize five years of hindsight has given some perspective on their ethical, legal, and social implications. Since the first U.S. patent applications were filed for an engineerable CRISPR system in 2012, the IP landscape has become significantly more crowded, with several researchers controlling a few significant battlements. 

However, most of the commentary on the CRISPR patents has been negative. But, aside from money, there are some significant social positives as well. Patents are not the only means of private governance to reign in ethically unruly technology. At their core, patents are rights to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention. The corollary to this axiom is that patents, therefore, allow their owners to dictate to the rest of the world how to use the inventors’ technology. Although the claimed technology raises ethical or social concerns, patent holders have the right to tell their technologies’ users to behave ethically and to provide access to downstream inventions. The patents, when used well, can function as a powerful form of private governance. Those scientists have proposed patenting the use of CRISPR-based gene drives to prevent others from using the technology without rigorous scientific and ethical controls. Rather than using patents to ethically restrict access to controversial technologies, patents can be used to ethically promote access to the same. That is, patent holders can demand licensees promise that they make their technology available to broad segments of society and on fair terms. And, patents could also be used to ensure research access to a variety of technologies. Patent holders can publicly commit to refuse to execute their patents against researchers or academic institutions. In addition, patent holders can also use open licensing systems to researchers interesting in developing and sharing the technology for the public good. 

One potentially inappropriate use of CRISPR is its use in gene drives, a daisy chain of genetic editing that essentially forces future generations to inherit and subsequently pass on only a single variant of a particular gene. The concern is that gene drives, because they are forcibly heritable, become difficult to control once put in place. If later research finds negative, unintended effects of the particular genetic variant driven through the population, it may be too late. The legal mechanics of enforcing patent protection in this manner leave some gaps that likely need to be addressed. Moreover, the overreliance on patents as vehicles promoting the ethical uses of technology may crowd out other equally effective and less restrictive forms of control. 

IN CONCLUSION

Despite claims that the CRISPR patent dispute is a unique event, there are some greater lessons to be learned about the ethical, legal, and social implications of intellectual property in research science. The CRISPR patent controversies teach us that patents, like kitchen knives, are simply tools, without a moral valence separate from their users. Patents, like the CRISPR patents, can be used in ways that impede further research, or they can be used to promote, if not demand, their ethical application. The patents themselves do not do these things. The outcomes depend entirely on who's wielding them. To that end, the CRISPR patent controversies should encourage researchers to think about how, and by whom, their inventions will ultimately be used.

CASE IN POINT - Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacterium could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a kind of manufacture or composition of matter. However, other Justices argued that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them. Diamond v. Chakrabarty was a significant legal case, particularly with respect to the patent laws and the biotechnology industry. 

The story began with a genetic engineer Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty who works for General Electric for developing a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, which he proposed to use in treating oil spills. General Electric filed a patent application for the bacterium in the United States, but it was rejected by a patent examiner. Because, under patent law at that time, living things were generally understood to not be a patentable subject matter. And, of course, they appealed.

The Congress intended for the patent laws to be given a broad scope that was not unlimited and laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas were not patentable. However, the GE was not trying to patent a kind of natural phenomenon but rather a human-made bacterium he developed. But, the Supreme Court here held that Chakrabarty had not merely discovered the bacteria's existence, he created it by himself and adapted it to a particular purpose. 

To summarize the case, a live, human-made micro-organism is a patentable subject matter under the organism that constitutes a manufacture or composition of matter within that statute. While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, the respondent's claim is not to an unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter, a product of human ingenuity. Moreover, the passage of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, and the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection does not evidence congressional understanding that the terms manufacture or composition of matter. The U.S. Supreme Court reads the term manufacture in 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 in accordance with its dictionary definition to mean the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery. Eventually, the court found that the respondent had produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and which had the potential for significant utility. The court held that the language of 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 embraced Chakrabarty's invention.

Reference

Academic.oup.com. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/4/3/565/4706243. 

Corral, M. (2021, July 7). Can living beings be patented? ABG IP. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://abg-ip.com/living-beings-patented/.

CRISPR therapeutics announces pricing of Initial Public Offering. CRISPR Therapeutics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2021, from http://ir.crisprtx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crispr-therapeutics-announces-pricing-initial-public-offering/. 

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). Justia Law. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/. 

Haven, A. (2019, June 24). Forget jurassic park – the realities of gene editing in the animal world. UX Connections. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.uxconnections.com/forget-jurassic-park-the-realities-of-gene-editing-in-the-animal-world/.

ScienceDaily. (2018, October 8). Genetic disease healed using genome editing. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181008183347.htm.   

How important is the protection of property rights to the effort to promote strong, prosperous businesses?

 How important is the protection of property rights to the effort to promote strong, prosperous businesses? 

Typically, property rights are defined as the ownership, an owner’s right to use a good or asset for consumption, income generation, the right to contract with other parties by renting, pledging, or mortgaging a good or asset, by allowing other parties to use it, or trades, the right to transfer property to others. And, trades facilitate business and economic development. Most economic theories indicate that stronger property rights should lead to a higher rate of investment and economic growth. 

So, how do property rights affect economic activity? Insecure property rights imply that individuals or business owners may fail to realize the returns of their investment and efforts, and it is also unproductive while everyone has to defend their own property all by themselves. Trade is also one of the crucial economic activities that require private assets to be used by those who can do so most productively and strong property rights facilitate trades. Finally, how we use and dispose our property is a right like freedom. If we lost the freedom of how we live our life, how do we get our dreams to come true?

To what extent should governments restrict property rights to protect other important rights?

Typically, when a government restricts some rights of its citizens, it must be for public benefit or at least reasonable. During the pandemic of COVID-19, governments around the world are all trying to prevent and block it. Some cities or states require people to get vaccinated before they back to work. Airlines require their customers to show their COVID-19 PCR test results before boarding. These regulations are great examples of restricting property rights to protect other important rights, which is the public benefit. Suppose that many business owners refuse to do those restrictions and keep doing their businesses without any preventing measures, the virus will outbreak briskly, and more highly transmissible variants will appear to spark concerns that vaccines may be less effective against them.

Reflection

At the end of this week's journal, I draw a picture that captures the relationship between business activities, individuals, and governments. I usually draw something to help me better a concept, a notion, or an idea. Although the picture does not include all the elements of the protection of property rights to the effort to promote strong, prosperous businesses, it described the basic interactions involved.

Reference

Reforming property rights and economic development. VOX, CEPR Policy Portal. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://voxeu.org/article/reforming-property-rights-and-economic-development. 

If you found a prototype of a revolutionary new mobile phone lying on a public bench, what would you have done with it?

 If you found a prototype of a revolutionary new mobile phone lying on a public bench, what would you have done with it? 

Personally, I don't care if it is a revolutionary new one or not, I am not going to hold it as mine since I do not own it since it was supposed to be unintentionally relinquished or set down for later retrieval. Most of the time, I may be struggling within my mind. Should I pick it up and hand it to a police officer or just ignore it? Because some of the good guys in Taiwan who pick it up and try to deliver it to the police, or relinquish it to its owner, may be treated impolitely when the owner returns to get it back. The real world is not like a video game where you can hit someone or monsters freely, pick up the coin and pieces of equipment they dropped, and take possession of it. 

What would be the consequences of your chosen action?

In this case, I don't know if the owner has abandoned the prototype and intends to relinquish ownership in it, or not. If he(or she) did intend to relinquish ownership, the prototype probably belongs to the new owner, probably me. However, if the prototype was simply mislaid, then the finder must relinquish it once the rightful owner demands its return. If I refuse to return the mislaid prototype to its rightful owner, the owner probably sue me for conversion, which is considered a tort. In addition to the consequences, I reckon if it is really a prototype of a revolutionary new mobile phone, the owner or the creator, must be very anxious after mislaid it. The creator's hard work will go down the drain and it is a bad news for all humankind. Most people probably say that, what does it even matter to me if it is not my property. The truth is, everyone can be the victim. Even though you did not innovate anything, you still don't want to be invaded, stolen, or robbed. However, I believe some prizes are valid for encouraging honorable behaviors based on reciprocity.

Does the value of a parcel of land come only from the profits it can generate? If not, what makes land valuable? Does it have an “inherent” value that has nothing to do with human profit?

To my knowledge, the value of a parcel of land does not only from the profit it can generate. First of all, we are essentially one of the terrestrial animals. We are not Aquaman who can live and breathe underwater. So, the land supports our lives, to provide a place to live such as building a house on the land, even though the land does not generate any profit at all. How would you measure that with money? Secondly, the treasury underground such as water, raw materials, or petro oil. The inherent value of land would also arise from an ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage, scientific attribute, or characteristic of a natural resource or historic place. Living in the desert or the arctic are two different experiences.

A Brief Stroy

In 1998, on Malleny Street, Sydney, Bill Gertos noticed a house that was in dilapidation while visiting a client, and he learned that the person who originally lived here had passed away for a while after inquiring. Gertos then spent about A$150,000 to repair the house and rent it out. In 2017, he filed to claim for the ownership of the house based on squatter's rights. The descendants of the original owner learned it from the police's announcement and were aware of the situation.

This house was actually owned by a man named Henry Thompson Downie in 1927. The Downie family moved to Ashfield, New South Wales during Second World War. With the coming conversion of the house, Downey’s descendants are of course very disgruntled, claiming that Gertos has not fulfilled his obligation of public notification and therefore has no right to claim for the ownership.

The Squatter's Rights, Adverse Possession

The so-called adverse possession refers to a possessor who continuously and publicly occupies the other party’s property without the original owner’s consent. If the rightful owner does not claim to be the owner of the real estate within a certain period, this possessor can legally obtain the ownership. However, strictly speaking, the initial behavior of the occupier is not legal and risky. Before enough time has passed, the rightful owner still possibly sue the occupant with trespass. Until the required time period has passed, the rights of the occupier will be protected. In New South Wales, Sydney, this period was at least 12 years. 

How is intellectual property a true form of property? 

Different from physical property, such as real estate, jewelry, or cars, intellectual property is intangible personal property. It is the rights that protect your right to utilize your original creation except for the idea itself. Some intellectual property rights last for a specific amount of time, while others can theoretically last forever. So, to summarize, intellectual property is movable, intangible, and personal property. In addition, another intangible personal property that is shot to fame recently is NFT. A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a digital ledger (blockchain). NFTs can be associated with reproducible digital files such as photos, videos, and audio. In the simplest terms, NFTs transform digital works of art and other collectibles into one-of-a-kind, verifiable assets that are easy to trade on the blockchain.

Do you think it is appropriate for governments to protect intellectual property just like any other form of property? 

A patent grants the right to exclude others. The rule of law would protect your right to exclude against the intrusions of others and confers the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented product without a licensing agreement. I reckon that it is vital to protect intellectual property. The only question is, HOW? We all know how to protect our private land or house when someone trespass. But, are there the same way to protect those intangible things? To legally protect it like a legally enforceable contract, we have to define it first, to know what we are actually protecting. However, I believe the key point here is that we do not want to protect it way too much cause the monopoly exists forever or diminish innovation. Therefore, we must keep balancing it by analyzing consumers and producers. Other forms of property are mostly something we earned or purchased through exchange or trades. But, the government does not protect your land or house only for a limited time period or prevent others to build the same house with the same materials. Overall, I think it is inappropriate for governments to protect intellectual property just like any other form of property because they are inherently different. After all, creations from human minds are not the same as creations by mother nature or God. Finally, the procedures to get the rights still need to be improved. Many innovators and creators may be waiting for the results for months or even years and postpone many new products that may benefit or even change our world. Those rigorous application and approval processes with the government will kill those inventions.

Reference

Burke, K. (2020, March 7). Property developer makes $1.4M after claiming squatter's rights on Ashbury House. Domain. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://www.domain.com.au/news/property-developer-bill-gertos-make-1-4-million-after-claiming-squatters-rights-on-ashbury-house-937780/. 

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat World Knowledge.

Governments enforce some promises but do not enforce most promises made between people. Do you think it is important for governments to enforce certain promises? What kinds of promises should be enforced?

 Governments enforce some promises but do not enforce most promises made between people. Do you think it is important for governments to enforce certain promises? What kinds of promises should be enforced?

As always, trust is hard to build but very easy to lose. If a government does not enforce all of its promises, it will lose its credit over time. What happens if citizens of a country do not trust their government? Currency policy is an excessively sensitive example of our daily life. Turkey's recent currency crash is a good example. We used to think that our government will do the best it can to make our lives better not worse. However, it seems did not happen in Turkey. 

In 2021, Turkey’s currency has been falling to an all-time low against the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan presses ahead with a widely criticized effort to cut interest rates despite surging consumer prices. As a result, families are struggling to buy food and other goods. As we know that lower interest rate will increase the money supply since when all else being equal, a larger money supply lowers market interest rates, making it less expensive for consumers to borrow. Conversely, smaller money supplies tend to raise market interest rates, making it pricier for consumers to take out a loan. Now, the Turkish lira has lost around 40% of its value since the start of the year, becoming one of the world's worst-performing currencies. 

Basically, I think a currency or the monetary system is like a contract signed by the government to keep our economy going and growing. A government must promise to ensure the value of its currency is good enough to make its citizens live better. Although generally, a government has the authority to issue its currency, it is still created based on trust. I trust the money you give to me so I work hard to earn it. If it keeps losing its day by day, no one wants to work for it. Therefore, I think one of the very important promises that governments must keep and enforce is to keep the monetary system well administrated. Otherwise, every country can be like today's Turkey, the economic turmoil sends desperation and inflation soaring. Threatened by a currency crisis, many people lining up for subsidized bread, cutting back on meat, and fleeing for a better life in Europe.

Reference

SUZAN FRASER, A. P. (2021, December 3). Explainer: Turkey's currency is crashing. what's the impact?: Taiwan news: 2021-12-03 22:37:24. Taiwan News. Retrieved December 6, 2021, from https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4364306. 

Brief Fact Summary of The American case of Sherwood v. Walker.

 Brief Fact Summary of The American case of Sherwood v. Walker. 

Have to ever regrated selling a good at a low price when you realize that you underestimate it? Did you accept it and learn from it, or did you ignore the contract, refuse to sell it, and try to make a new deal? This 19th-century case involving the sale of a cow is one of the most famous contracts cases in American law. Sherwood was the plaintiff who contracted to buy a cow that was believed to be barren at a low price from Walker (the Defendant). After they signed the contract, they both realized the cow was pregnant. A pregnant cow can produce milk rather than just beef. Therefore, Sherwood wanted to enforce the contract while Walker wanted rescission since the value of the cow increased due to the misestimation, a mutual mistake. Sherwood v. Walker has been cited as legal authority in more than fifty court decisions, from New York to California. It is celebrated, classic, and seminal. It remains one of the great contributions to contract jurisprudence. The case is a part of Michigan history known to practically every living American lawyer and law school student.

The key point here is that both sides had mutual consent while they signed the contract, but the mutual consent was based on misestimation. It was considered a legally enforceable promise once until Sherwood sued Walker when Walker refused to perform it. Of course, Sherwood is happy to purchase the cow at such a beautiful price, but Walker was not glad to earn less money. It was not an information asymmetry. It was a mutual mistake. However, in the trial, Sherwood has to prove it was a valid contract and mutual consent while Waller was trying to prove the mutual consent is a mistake of both parties. So, was there a mutual mistake in the perception of facts that permits either to rescind the contract? According to the verdict, yes. The mistake or misapprehension of the parties went to the whole substance of the agreement. Normally, we all think have to keep our promise, even though we signed a bad contract. However, in this case, one of them regretted AFTER signing the contract due to the mutual mistake. Notice that it is a MUTUAL mistake not just a bad contract for the party who regretted it.

What were the main legal issues involved? 

One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. This case reflects the question of whether two parties should be held to an agreement regarding one thing if the nature of the thing changes entirely. It is claimed that a mutual mistake of a material fact was made by the parties when the contract of sale was made. There was no guarantee in the case of the quality of the animal. Where there is no warranty, there can be no mistake of fact when no such fact exists, or, if in existence, neither party knew of it, or could know of it. In this case, neither party knew the actual quality and condition of this cow at the time of the sale. Accordingly, whether a contract was made based on a mutual aberration of the parties involving material facts can be void if the two parties learn of their mistake. The legal issues twist around the fact that both parties entered into a sale agreement under a bilateral misunderstanding.

What approach did the court take in addressing the legal issue? 

Initially, Sherwood brought a replevin action before a Justice of the Peace to obtain possession of Rose, and he won. Walker appealed to Wayne County Circuit Court, where Sherwood won again. However, Walker determined not to lose the case. So, he appealed again to the Michigan Supreme Court. The high court overruled the previous verdicts. The court found that the parties’ misapprehension regarding the barren nature of the cow went to the substance of the agreement. As such, the agreement was void due to its pregnancy. The cow ceased to be the animal that was originally deemed to be. Because the mutual mistake had affected the substance of the transaction had been made, Hiram Walker had a right to rescind the contract and keep the cow. That means, where a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the contract is voidable. A party bears the risk of a mistake when the risk is allocated to him(or she), or he(or she) is aware at the time the contract is made and he(or she) has limited knowledge with respect to facts to which the mistake relates but treat his(or her) limited knowledge as sufficient.

How did the court apply its approach to the facts of the case? 

The court’s position is that a mutual, material mistake of fact makes the contract voidable by the party adversely affected by the mistake. The critical question is whether there was a mistake as to a material fact. The mistake was not of the mere quality of the animal but went to the very nature of the thing. A barren cow is substantially a different creature than a breeding one. There is as much different between them for all purposes of use as there is between an ox and a cow that is capable of breeding and giving milk. 

If the mutual mistake had simply related to the fact whether she was with calf or not for one season, then it might have been a good sale; but the mistake affected the character of the animal for all time, and for her present and ultimate use. The cow was not in fact the animal, or the kind of animal, the defendants intended to sell or the plaintiff to buy. She was not a barren cow, and, if this fact had been known there would have been no contract. This mistake affected the substance of the whole consideration, and it must be considered that there was no contract to sell or sale of the cow as she actually was.

Provide a detailed example of how the court's conclusion might be applied in a modern business setting. 

Signing contracts with business parties is an essential part of doing business. Suppose you run a coffee chain like Starbucks. You have to sign many contracts with many different suppliers to ensure the supply of coffee does not discontinue and is safe. One day, you approach a local coffee bean supplier, and due to the conditions such as the weather and the soil, the quality of the coffee beans is not good enough. Therefore, you decide to purchase the product at a lower price and use them on the cheaper drinks. The supplier agreed since he thinks it is a fair price. You both have mutual consent and signed a contract for the coming ten years to supply ten million pounds each year at $1 per pound. However, due to climate change and genetic variation, the quality of the coffee beans has become much higher than they were five years ago. So, five years later, the supplier refuses to supply and attempt to sell them at a higher price. Of course, you probably sue him to legally enforce the promise. This very likely happens when material facts are changed after signing a legally enforceable contract.

In this case, if the mutual mistake had simply related to the fact whether the coffee beans were of high quality or not for one season, then it might have been a good sale; but the mistake affected the character of the coffee beans for all time, and for its present and ultimate use. The coffee beans were not in fact the material, or the kind of material, the supplier intended to sell or you to buy. Moreover, if this fact had been known there would have been no contract like this one. This mistake affected the substance of the whole consideration.

Finally, a promise is always followed by trust. However, trust is hard to build but easy to lose. Humans feel more pain when they are losing something than they are getting something. Therefore, it is not wise to break a promise easily or frequently. Credibility is always a part of your assets when doing business. Although most of us do not want to lose anything, sometimes it is still worth keeping your words when earning trust and creating credibility. In addition, actively seeking diverse-owned businesses to purchase from is always a wise choice. And, I truly believe that such a supplier diversity is a clever business decision and business imperative in today’s business climate. It helps us identify and deliver high-quality products and services across all business channels while driving value and economic development in the communities we serve.

Reference

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat World Knowledge.

Sherwood v. Walker. U.S. Contract Law for LL.M. Students. (2017, August 18). Retrieved December 6, 2021, from http://blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu/harriscontracts/home/excuse/sherwood-v-walker/. 

What duties do you owe to the people closest to you, such as family, friends, and neighbors?

 What duties do you owe to the people closest to you, such as family, friends, and neighbors? 

Is caring for people a moral option or a duty? What can happen when people ignore the requirement to manage their desires for both their own good and the good of society, which are interdependent? Most people may think our nature is to satisfy our own desires. 

So, based on this, a social contract between the people and government in which caring is left as a choice and we should be fair and kind to others only because it helps us with our own interests. Moreover, we decide the amount and kind of care we give and become good people by how well we live up to the duty(Humphreys, 2014).

However, there are other opinions on this. We are naturally social creatures from the existence of family, friends, and society. Caring is a natural human emotion and we need and benefit from care throughout our lives, from parents, family, friends, and the State. Therefore, caring shouldn’t be depersonalized since it’s a natural human impulse and interaction that has to be nuanced to an individual’s needs and personality. It includes being sensitive and responsive to often complex feelings.

Every devil was once an angel. Acting with courage is midway between the excess of recklessness and the deficiency of timidity. I think the key factors of the duty are balance, fairness, reciprocity, and nature. To balance before making a rational choice to act according to the midpoint between excess and deficiency of desires and feelings. To be fair while we take risks while ignoring the need to act with prudence and consideration for the well-being of others. We must have the solutions to prisoner’s dilemmas to overcome individual incentives in favor of the common good. 

 

When the rivers are all dried up, and the trees are all cut down, people will realize that they will not be able to EAT money. I think such a duty is also an example of The prisoner's dilemma, an inconsistency in decision analysis in which two individuals acting in their own self-interests do not produce the optimal outcome, even though the highest reward for each party occurs when both parties choose to co-operate.

Suppose there are two criminals, Tom and Jerry are being interrogated in separate rooms. The authorities are trying to convince at least one of the suspects to betray the other accomplice and testify to the crime. Do you think they are likely to cooperate with his accomplice and remain silent? Or, to defect from the gang and testify for the prosecution? What would you do if you don't know whether your ally will betray you or not?

Finally, to rethink the duty, I think there is a part of it in our inherent nature, and also a part of it is our own free choices. That's why we always have many wrongdoers and also many good guys. Cleverness is a gift, kindness is a choice. 

What duties do you owe to people in general, any time and any place?

Although we can not choose when or how we came to this world, the only truth is we are already here and rely on it. We cannot undo the past, the only thing we can do is move forward. I think don't burn the world down is the top priority and also the inherent duty. Sometimes, I think the world does not owe to us or anyone. So, we cannot take everything for granted. But, we all have the choice to start a good circulation. Treating others with a certain level of respect is a great start. 

Reference

Humphreys, J. (2014, June 13). Have you a moral duty to care for others? The Irish Times. Retrieved November 28, 2021, from https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/have-you-a-moral-duty-to-care-for-others-1.1830257. 

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat World Knowledge.