Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Michael Smyth (the plaintiff) and his colleague were using the corporate email in their purposes by sending various messages to each other regarding different events. Nonetheless, they used inappropriate language for their communication (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). In this instance, the Pillsbury Company (the defendant) fired them for using inappropriate language in the corporate email. In turn, the plaintiff wrote the complaint about the violated the privacy policy and intellectual property. Nonetheless, the desires of the plaintiff were reversed due to the lack of the legal base to support the complaint.
The primary issue lays in the fact that the plaintiff introduced the case against the defendant on the violation of the private space and usage of the intellectual property in one’s purposes (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). The plaintiff also complained about the mischarged fire due to the usage of the corporate email in the private purposes of having private conversations with the colleagues by using inappropriate language. Nonetheless, in the end, the case was solved as reversed for plaintiff due to the now legal foundation for the violation of the intellectual property right by having the access to the usage of the email by the individual. In the end, the primary issue lays in the misconception of the understanding of the primary definitions of the private and intellectual property.
As for the primary rules of the law, one of them is the definition of “intrusion”, which can be defined as “one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or selection of another or his private affairs or concerns” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 86). It could be said that this lawsuit is primarily focused on the privacy policy. Nonetheless, this phenomenon has a tendency to exist due to the lack of definition of the intellection property. It could be said that these aspects are the primary law rules, which define and determine the flow of the case.
As for the analysis, it remains evident that the actions of the defendant were considered by the court as being reasonable since the complaint of the plaintiff does not fully correspond with the term intrusion. In this instance, the court discovers the balance between the employer’s and employee’s actions, as, in this instance, it was essential for the employer to know the content of the communication to prohibit the utilization of the email in the private purposes and usage of inappropriate language. Additionally, in this instance, the plaintiff voluntarily distributed negative and aggressive comments via the corporate system (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
As for my opinion and influence of the case on the future flow of the business law, it could be said that it provides a clear understanding of privacy and intellectual property in the corporate sphere. Nowadays, it remains evident that the corporate emails cannot be considered as the intellectual property (Anderson, 2013). Lastly, this approach is beneficial for building the corporate culture within the organization due to the profound definition of these aspects, as they determine the rights and duties of the employees.
References
Anderson, M. (2013). Emails (and other pure information) are not property. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 8(5), 357-358.
Eggertson, L. (2013). Quality control. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 185(10), 467.
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and ethics in the business environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Holtzhausen, L., & Fourie, L. (2009). Employees’ perceptions of company values and objectives and employer-employee relationships: Theoretical model. Corporate Communications, 14(3), 333-344.
Legal information institute: First Amendment. (2014). Web.
Legal information institute: Products liability. (2014). Web.
Spector, M. (2009). GM broadens product-liability pact. The Wall Street Journal. Eastern Edition, p. B2.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.