BUS 221 Exam 2

Arvitz purchases a copy of Wordsample 7.0 software, the newest version of the word processing program Arvitz normally uses. Arvitz wants to share a copy of the software with his friends Kim and Carrie, but the program was designed to only be copied once. Arvitz is a decent programmer, so after spending a little time with the program, Arvitz learns how to bypass the code that only allows the program to be copied once. Arvitz then makes copies of the program and gives these copies to Kim and Carrie. By copying the word processing program and giving the program to his friends, Arvitz has violated:

Wordsample’s copyright rights

Legal Reasoning: Computer software programs and source codes are protected creative works under federal copyright law. Bypassing copy protection to make and distribute unauthorized copies of the software to others constitutes copyright infringement

Chloe is taking a botany class at the local university, so she purchases the textbook from the bookstore. Several of Chloe’s friends are also taking the botany class. Chloe decides to make some money on her purchase of the textbook. Chloe scans the book into her computer and then sells the digital copies to her friends for 25 percent of the price they would have paid for the textbook. After selling her digital “product” to six friends, Chloe not only has more than recovered the cost of her textbook, she can still sell the book back to the bookstore at the end of the semester. Genius! By scanning and selling the textbook, Chloe has:

committed copyright infringement because Chloe’s actions are not permissible under the first sale doctrine.

The first sale doctrine allows the lawful owner of a specific physical copy of a copyrighted work to resell or give away that particular physical copy^. However, making new digital reproductions by scanning the book and selling those unauthorized copies to others constitutes illegal reproduction and distribution under copyright law, which is not protected by the first sale doctrine

Myra purchases an electric can opener from her neighbor’s yard sale. That evening, as Myra is using the can opener for the first time, it explodes, sending shards of plastic and metal into Myra’s face and eyes. Myra wants to file a product liability lawsuit because the can opener was defective and caused her injury. If Myra files the lawsuit, she can effectively sue:

the retailer who sold the can opener to Myra’s neighbor and the manufacturer of the can opener.

Correct. To be sued for a defective product that causes injury to a consumer, one must be engaged in the business of selling such a product. This would include the retailer and manufacturer, but not Myra’s neighbor.

Strict Liability: Liability Without Fault

A person is held responsible for harm even if they used the utmost care

Rihana and her friends attend the opening day of Wild Water Country, a local water park attraction. Before riding the new Tornado Tunnel water slide, the steepest and scariest water slide in the park, Wild Water Country requires its customers to sign a waiver of liability which states that they know the risks involved in riding the Tornado Tunnel, and that Wild Water Country is not responsible for injuries that occur during the ride. Rihana signs the waiver and climbs to the top of the slide. As she begins her descent, however, the metal slide buckles under the weight of the riders. Rihana and several other riders are thrown from the slide and fall 100 feet to their deaths. Rihana’s parents sue Wild Water Country. Wild Water Country defends the lawsuit by stating they are not liable for any injuries because Rihana had signed a waiver of liability, and, therefore, she had assumed the risks associated with riding the water slide. Wild Water Country’s defense will probably:

• not be successful because companies cannot require their patrons to sign a waiver of liability.

• not be successful, because Rihana did not assume the risk of the water ride collapsing.

• be successful because companies can lawfully require their patrons to sign a waiver of liability.

• be successful because Rihana assumed the risk of riding on the water slide

not be successful, because Rihana did not assume the risk of the water ride collapsing.

Liam is Neely’s supervisor. During Neely’s yearly written evaluation, Liam states that Neely has not performed her job well at all, constantly comes in late to work, and stirs up trouble with the other employees. Neely is understandably upset and wants to sue Liam for defamation. If Neely files a lawsuit against Liam for libel, Neely will probably:

not be successful if Liam’s comments on Neely’s written evaluation were made in good faith.

Freddy carries his books and school supplies in a large backpack. The hallways at Freddy’s school are always very crowded. One day, Freddy turns around quickly to talk to a friend, and a sharp pencil that is sticking out of his backpack gouges Lorraine in the eye. Lorraine ends up losing the use of her eye. If Lorraine sues Freddy in a negligence action, the standard the court will use to determine whether Freddy is liable is:

what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances.

Anne Marie has surgery to have her gall bladder removed at Mt. Sinai Hospital. The surgery goes well, but several days later, Anne Marie experiences severe abdominal pain. X-rays reveal a small surgical instrument in Anne Marie’s abdominal cavity. Anne Marie has to endure another surgery to remove the instrument. Anne Marie sues the surgeon for negligence. To win her negligence lawsuit against the surgeon, Anne Marie must prove:

that a reasonable surgeon would not have left a surgical instrument in her abdominal cavity.

Andrea and Jerome are involved in a terrible car accident. Andrea ran a red light and plowed into Jerome’s car, causing Jerome’s car to be totaled. Luckily, Jerome was not hurt. Jerome files a tort lawsuit against Andrea. If he is successful in his lawsuit, Jerome will receive compensatory damages, the purpose of which is to:

• put Jerome in a better position than he would have been in had the tort not occurred.

• reward Jerome for not being at fault.

• punish Andrea for her bad acts.

• put Jerome in the position he would have been in had the tort not occurred.

put Jerome in the position he would have been in had the tort not occurred.

Kevin is preparing his wife’s favorite stir-fry dish for dinner. As Kevin is chopping the vegetables for the stir-fry, his hand slips and he cuts his hand on the sharp knife. Kevin’s wife rushes him to the emergency room. Kevin receives 20 stitches because the cut is so deep. Kevin wants to sue the knife manufacturer for damages. Kevin claims that the knife was defective because it was unreasonably dangerous. If Kevin files a strict liability lawsuit against the knife manufacturer, he will:

lose, because a sharp knife is not unreasonably dangerous.

Laura purchases a lawnmower from Tractor Supply. The lawnmower has a flap in the back so the blade is not exposed to the person pushing the lawnmower. Laura does not like the flap dangling down, so she removes the flap. While Laura is mowing her yard, the mower slings a sharp rock into the air. The rock strikes Laura in the eye. Laura sues Tractor Supply, alleging that the lawnmower is defective and caused injury to her. In her lawsuit against Tractor Supply and the manufacturer, Laura will likely be:

unsuccessful, because the lawnmower was not in the same condition that it was in when Laura bought it.

Marla suffers a heart attack after taking a prescription drug that has been linked in studies to heart problems. Marla would like to sue for her injuries. Marla does her homework and discovers there are five manufacturers of the drug. Unfortunately, because Marla took the drug five years ago, there is no way to tell which manufacturer created the actual drug that Marla took. To proceed with her lawsuit:

Marla can sue all five manufacturers, and any recovery she receives will be apportioned among the manufacturers according to their share of the market.

Fernando is riding his Kawasaki motorcycle and the front wheel falls off. Fernando is severely injured, of course. Fernando hires a mechanic to look at the motorcycle. The mechanic discovers that the bolt that holds the front tire in place had broken in half because it was not thick enough, and this is what caused the tire to fall off. The mechanic explained that using a thicker bolt would only have cost a few dollars more! Fernando sues Kawasaki for his injuries, claiming that Kawasaki had used a defective design in manufacturing its motorcycle. To be successful in his defective design product liability lawsuit, Fernando must prove:

• that a reasonable alternative design was available, and that as a result of the failure of Kawasaki to adopt the alternative design, the product was not reasonably safe.

• only that the tire fell off and that Fernando was injured.

• that Kawasaki intentionally used defective materials in its design.

• only that the product was unreasonably unsafe.

that a reasonable alternative design was available, and that as a result of the failure of Kawasaki to adopt the alternative design, the product was not reasonably safe.

Monica has created her own cleaning solution. Monica's friends encourage her to sell the cleaning solution; they think it is so fantastic they believe Monica will make a lot of money on it. They encourage Monica to apply for a patent on the cleaning solution formula so that no one can copy it, and Monica will be the only one who can sell it. Monica likes the idea of making a lot of money but knows she will have to reveal her formula to obtain a patent, otherwise she would have to keep it a trade secret. If Monica decides to apply for and receives a patent on the cleaning solution:

• she can change the formula and still maintain her patent.

• she has revealed the formula but has the sole right to produce it and sell it for 40 years.

• she has revealed the formula but has the sole right to produce it and sell it for 20 years.

• she will be protected under Section 757 of the Restatement of Torts

she has revealed the formula but has the sole right to produce it and sell it for 20 years.

Dakota’s series of romantic novels is very popular in the United States, so much so that her publisher, Antwone, wants to begin publishing the novels in other countries as well. Antwone approaches a publishing house in Australia, and the publishing house is open to discussing a deal. Dakota is concerned that her copyright only protects her in the United States, so Dakota asks Antwone to research that. When Antwone researches that issue for Dakota, he will discover that:

Dakota’s novels will be protected if both the United States and Australia are signatories to the Berne Convention.

Arvitz purchases a copy of Wordsample 7.0 software, the newest version of the word processing program Arvitz normally uses. Arvitz wants to share a copy of the software with his friends Kim and Carrie, but the program was designed to only be copied once. Arvitz is a decent programmer, so after spending a little time with the program, Arvitz learns how to bypass the code that only allows the program to be copied once. Arvitz then makes copies of the program and gives these copies to Kim and Carrie. By copying the word processing program and giving the program to his friends, Arvitz has violated:

• Wordsample's trademark rights.

• Wordsample's copyright rights.

• no rights.

• Wordsample's trade secret rights.

Wordsample's copyright rights.

Benita has a food truck where she sells spicy fried gorditas. Benita has been making the gorditas for years, using her family’s recipe that has been passed down from generation to generation. Benita wants to protect her family recipe from being revealed to anyone else, so Benita considers the options available to her for the protection of her intellectual property. Benita knows if she files a patent application, she would have to include a list of her ingredients. Because Benita’s main concern is protecting the recipe from being revealed to anyone else, Benita’s best approach is to treat the family fried gordita recipe as a:

• patent.

• trademark.

• copyright.

• trade secret.

trade secret

Chloe is taking a botany class at the local university, so she purchases the textbook from the bookstore. Several of Chloe’s friends are also taking the botany class. Chloe decides to make some money on her purchase of the textbook. Chloe scans the book into her computer and then sells the digital copies to her friends for 25 percent of the price they would have paid for the textbook. After selling her digital “product” to six friends, Chloe not only has more than recovered the cost of her textbook, she can still sell the book back to the bookstore at the end of the semester. Genius! By scanning and selling the textbook, Chloe has:

• not committed copyright infringement whether or not she sells the textbook back to the bookstore at the end of the semester.

• committed copyright infringement if Chloe sells the textbook back to the bookstore at the end of the semester.

• not committed copyright infringement because Chloe’s actions are permissible under the first sale doctrine.

• committed copyright infringement because Chloe’s actions are not permissible under the first sale doctrine.

committed copyright infringement because Chloe’s actions are not permissible under the first sale doctrine.

Beatrice runs a boutique clothing store called Jewel’s Place. Beatrice’s biggest local competitor is Andrea, who owns a similar shop called Rags to Riches. Beatrice makes several social media posts stating that Andrea purchases the clothing in her store from an overseas sweat shop that hires underage children and pays them only 50 cents per day. Beatrice’s online posts:

constitute defamation if the statements are not true.

Oscar is an excellent computer programmer who has been asked by a local university to teach a course in computer sciences. As part of the curriculum, Oscar teaches students how to bypass certain security features of popular software programs. During one class lesson, Oscar opened a homework grading software and demonstrated to students the exact steps to uncover all the correct answers. Is Oscar's conduct a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

No, because it was done for educational purposes.

Evelyn is looking for a baby gift for her friend, so she visits an online social media site, Bundle of Joy, to get some ideas. Bundle of Joy is a social media site where expectant and recent mothers can visit and exchange ideas and concerns. It has a huge presence on the internet, almost as big as Facebook. Evelyn is always concerned about her privacy online, so she carefully reviews the company’s privacy policy before she uses the website. The privacy policy clearly states that the site uses cookies to gather information from the user, but the information will be used only by Bundle of Joy to help the user connect with other users who share common interests. A week later, Evelyn begins receiving offers for baby items from multiple online retailers, each beginning with the words: “Because you visited Bundle of Joy…..” Evelyn is enraged and complains to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Is there anything the FTC can do on Evelyn’s behalf?

Yes, the FTC can sue Bundle of Joy if it has an agreement with Bundle of Joy that allows the FTC the power to review Bundle of Joy’s privacy and data practices and if Bundle of Joy violates its own policies.

Josef grew tired of making minimum wage at a local fast-food restaurant, so he decided to pursue a more lucrative venture. Josef started selling marijuana and meth and soon built up a substantial business. Josef then posts about his success on Facebook, displaying a picture of himself surrounded by his “product” and fanning out a big stack of cash. After local law enforcement learns of the post, an officer friends Josef online to learn more about his contacts, so local law enforcement can find out who Josef’s customers and suppliers are. Any information obtained through this online “sting”:

can be legally used.

Hallie has worked at Blue Stone Insurance Company for 12 years. Hallie has never had a discipline problem and has always excelled in her job as a human resources specialist. Yesterday, Hallie’s supervisor Kimberly contacted her and told Hallie that she was being let go because of some controversial Facebook posts that Hallie had made that violated Blue Stone’s media policy. Hallie had posted on Facebook pictures of herself smoking marijuana and made statements that Blue Stone’s random drug testing policy was unfair. Hallie also listed the names of Blue Stone employees who were scheduled to be drug tested in the next week. Hallie wants to sue the company for unlawful firing; she believes that her First Amendment rights have been violated because Blue Stone accessed her Facebook account and fired her based on her posts. Does Hallie have a valid claim for wrongful termination?

• No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because her posts violated the company’s social media policy.

• Yes, Hallie has a valid claim for wrongful termination because an employer censoring an employee’s social media posts is a violation of the First Amendment.

• Yes, Hallie has a valid claim for wrongful termination because courts have held that an employer cannot terminate a person based on that person’s violation of the company’s social media policy.

• No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because the First Amendment does not cover posts on social media.

No, Hallie does not have a valid claim for wrongful termination because her posts violated the company’s social media policy.

Alfonso plays basketball for Hope County High School. His team makes it to the state tournament, where they play their archrival, Duvall County High. After an intense game where tempers were running high, the Hope County team wins. While walking home from the basketball game, Alfonso is confronted by George, a member of the Duvall County team. George pushes Alfonso, causing him to fall to the ground. Enraged, Alfonso pulls a gun from his gym bag and shoots George in the chest, killing him instantly. Alfonso is arrested and charged with murder. Alfonso claims he shot George in self-defense. At trial, Alfonso’s claim of self-defense is likely to be:

unsuccessful, because Alfonso used excessive force.

Angelina and Sophia attended a professional development retreat at Ferncliff Camp. They met at a downtown location and traveled to the camp by bus. After three days of team-building exercises, Angelina and Sophia returned on the bus to their respective cars. When Angelina arrived at home, she discovered the camp employee who unloaded the bus had given her Sophia’s luggage by mistake. She called the camp to explain what happened and hopefully get her luggage back. Angelina can be charged with the crime of:

• theft, because she took Sophia’s suitcase without permission.

• theft by receiving, because the suitcase was handed to her by a camp employee.

• nothing, because she did not have the mental state required to commit a crime.

• conversion.

nothing, because she did not have the mental state required to commit a crime.

Bart works as an accountant for Good Times Restaurant. He is responsible for not only keeping the books current but also for making daily bank deposits for Good Times. Bart has been struggling financially, so he decides to put some of the daily bank deposits for Good Times into his personal account, instead of the bank account of Good Times. Every day, for 1 month, he takes 10 percent of the cash receipts from Good Times and deposits them into his personal checking account. When the manager of Good Times discovers what Bart is doing, she contacts the police, and Bart is arrested. Bart can be found guilty of:

embezzlement.

Ahmed is an employee of Bristol Manufacturing Company. Bristol manufactures plastics, which creates large amounts of toxic waste that must then be disposed of. Ahmed is responsible for making sure this toxic waste is properly disposed of. To cut costs, Ahmed decides to divert the liquid waste into a local stream, instead of properly disposing of it. This is a direct violation of the Clean Water Act, a national law that protects the United States’ waterways. Sanford is the director of the division in which Ahmed works and knows that Ahmed is doing this. When the authorities discover Ahmed’s unlawful actions, can Bristol be held criminally liable?

Bristol can be held criminally responsible if Sanford knew of Ahmed’s criminal actions.

which of the following intentional acts could result in a tort lawsuit

• Defamation

• Assault

• Trespass

• All of the above

All of the Above

Rachel is injured in 2 car accident. What damages can the jury award if she sues one or both of the drivers?

• Special Damages

• Organized Damages

• Public Order Damages

• Conversion Damages

Special Damages (cost is known, reimburse to $ amount)

A business can be found liable for a loss even though it can prove that it excersized the utmost care. This is called:

• actual malice

• unfair

• probable cause

• strict liability

Strict liability

What must you do to protect your right to commercially benefit from an original screenplay that you wrote?

• register it

• fix it in a durable medium

• license it

• patent it

fix it in a durable medium (copyright it automatic

What crime did 7-11’s cashier commit when she took $10.00 from her cash drawer, but then felt guilty & returned it

• infringement

• no crime

• burglary

• emezzlement

Embezzlement

In a negligence lawsuit, the jury determines whether defendant acted unreasonably as compared to

a reasonable man

Tort Law

A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, that causes harm or injury; its purpose is to compensate victims and sometimes punish or deter wrongful conduct.

Purpose of Tort Law

To compensate injured parties, deter harmful behavior, and sometimes punish particularly wrongful conduct.

Special Damages

Compensatory damages for specific, measurable financial losses caused by the defendant, such as medical bills, lost wages, and property repair costs.

General Damages

Compensatory damages for losses that are harder to calculate, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment.

Punitive Damages

Damages intended to punish a defendant for especially reckless, malicious, or intentional wrongdoing and deter similar conduct.

Intentional Tort

A tort committed when the defendant intentionally performs an act that results in the legally recognized harm.

Unintentional Tort

A tort committed without intent to cause the harm; negligence is the most common example.

Negligence

An unintentional tort that occurs when a person fails to exercise the level of care a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances.

Assault

An intentional act that creates in another person a reasonable fear or apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact; actual physical contact is not required.

Battery

An intentional and unauthorized harmful or offensive physical contact with another person.

Assault vs. Battery

Assault involves the reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact; battery involves the actual harmful or offensive contact.

False Imprisonment

Intentionally confining or restraining another person against their will and without legal authority.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

An intentional tort involving extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress to another person.

Defamation

A false statement of fact communicated to a third party that harms another person's reputation.

Slander

Defamation made orally or through spoken words.

Libel

Defamation made in a written, printed, recorded, or other permanent form, including online posts.

Slander Per Se

A category of spoken defamation where the statement is so inherently harmful that the plaintiff may not need to prove actual financial damages; examples include statements accusing someone of a serious crime or professional incompetence.

Invasion of Privacy

An intentional interference with a person's legally protected privacy rights.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

An intentional false statement of material fact made to induce another person to rely on it, resulting in harm to the person who reasonably relies on the statement.

Defense to Intentional Tort

A legal justification or excuse that can prevent liability for an intentional tort.

Consent

A defense to certain intentional torts when the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the conduct that caused the alleged harm.

Self-Defense

A defense allowing a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an imminent harmful or offensive attack.

Defense of Others

A defense allowing reasonable force to protect another person from an imminent harmful or offensive attack.

Defense of Property

A defense allowing reasonable force to protect one's property from interference or unlawful entry, although deadly force generally cannot be used merely to protect property.

Necessity

A defense that may apply when a person intentionally interferes with another's property to prevent a greater harm.

Wrongful Interference with a Contractual Relationship

An intentional tort that occurs when a defendant improperly induces a party to breach an existing contract with another person or business.

Wrongful Interference with a Business Relationship

An intentional tort that occurs when a defendant improperly interferes with an existing or prospective business relationship.

Defense to Wrongful Interference

A defendant may avoid liability if the interference was justified, privileged, or based on a legitimate business purpose rather than improper conduct.

Trespass to Land

An intentional and unauthorized entry onto another person's land or property.

Trespass to Personal Property

An intentional and unauthorized interference with another person's possession or use of personal property.

Conversion

An intentional exercise of control over another person's property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights, potentially requiring the defendant to pay the property's full value.

Disparagement of Property

A false statement that causes financial harm to another person's property or business-related interests.

Slander of Quality

False statements about the quality or condition of a product or property that cause financial harm.

Slander of Title

False statements about another person's ownership or legal title to property that cause financial harm.

Defense to Trespass

Consent, legal privilege, necessity, or other lawful authority may provide a defense to trespass.

Duty of Care

The legal obligation to act with the level of care that a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances.

Breach of Duty

The failure to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances.

Causation in Fact

The requirement that the defendant's conduct actually caused the plaintiff's injury; often tested with the "but for" test.

Proximate Causation

The requirement that the plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct.

Loss

The actual harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff that allows damages to be recovered.

Reasonable Person Standard

The standard used to determine negligence by asking how a reasonably careful person would have acted under similar circumstances.

Contributory Negligence

A defense under which a plaintiff who was even partially responsible for their own injury may be barred from recovering damages, depending on the jurisdiction.

Comparative Negligence

A system that reduces a plaintiff's damages according to the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff.

Assumption of Risk

A defense to negligence when the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepts the risk of participating in a potentially dangerous activity.

Strict Liability

Liability imposed without requiring proof that the defendant was negligent or intended to cause harm.

Purpose of Strict Liability

To hold a person or business responsible for certain inherently dangerous activities or defective products even when reasonable care was used.

When Strict Liability Applies

Strict liability generally applies to abnormally dangerous activities, certain dangerous animals, and defective products under products-liability law.

How Strict Liability Works

The plaintiff generally does not need to prove negligence or intent; instead, the plaintiff must establish the elements required for the particular strict-liability claim.

Strict Products Liability

Liability imposed on a seller or manufacturer for harm caused by a defective product, even if the seller or manufacturer exercised reasonable care.

Standing in Strict Products Liability

A person injured by a defective product can potentially bring a claim even if they did not directly purchase the product, depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.

Who Can Be Defendants in Strict Products Liability

Manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and other commercial sellers in the chain of distribution may potentially be liable.

Manufacturing Defect

A product that differs from its intended design because of an error during manufacturing, making the individual product defective.

Design Defect

A product whose intended design is unreasonably dangerous, meaning the product could have been designed more safely.

Failure to Warn

A product defect involving inadequate instructions or warnings about foreseeable risks associated with using the product.

Defenses to Strict Products Liability

Defenses may include assumption of risk, product misuse, comparative negligence in applicable jurisdictions, and substantial alteration of the product.

Trademark

A word, name, symbol, design, or other identifier that distinguishes the source of goods or services from those of others.

Purpose of Trademark Law

To identify and distinguish the source of goods or services and prevent consumer confusion.

What Can Become a Trademark

Words, names, logos, symbols, designs, phrases, sounds, colors, and other source-identifying features can potentially function as trademarks.

Trademark Application Process

A trademark applicant files an application with the USPTO, identifies the goods or services, and the USPTO examines the application for legal requirements and conflicts.

Trademark Criteria

A trademark generally must be distinctive and used or intended to be used to identify the source of goods or services.

Trademark Infringement

Unauthorized use of a trademark that is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of goods or services.

Trademark Dilution

Unauthorized use of a famous trademark that weakens its distinctiveness or harms its reputation, even without traditional consumer confusion.

Trademark Counterfeiting

Unauthorized use of an identical or substantially indistinguishable trademark on goods or services in a way that falsely suggests authenticity.

Trademark Licensing

Permission given by a trademark owner allowing another party to use the trademark under agreed conditions.

Trademark Remedies

Remedies may include injunctions, monetary damages, profits, destruction of counterfeit goods, and other court-ordered relief.

Patent

A legal right granted by the government that gives an inventor exclusive rights to an invention for a limited period.

Purpose of Patent Law

To encourage innovation by giving inventors exclusive rights in exchange for publicly disclosing their inventions.