For terry24 only

Reply to these two responses below. Please use sources from the text book “the legal environment of business.”

Response 1

White collar crimes have a length history in the United States.  And, largely due to their sophistication and relatively difficulty in understanding, many have not been prosecuted.  Although today’s government has many specific agencies actively pursuing these white-collar criminals, attaining justice can still prove difficult (Cornell, 2014). 

In the case of Victor and John testing with the software from SSA, it does fit within the definition of white-collar crime.  Specifically, this will rest under the sub-headings of Intellectual Property and copyright piracy.  That is, they willfully used ill-gotten software as a means of profit without the consent of the owner (DoJ, 2014). They two can be prosecuted.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation will certainly be interested in obtaining statements.  John would have good chance eliminating himself from prosecution by establishing contact with the FBI and informing of the theft of licensed software in a manner to profit.

Response 2

Based from the case provided, both John and Victor are under a sworn state that specifically holds them responsible for utilizing the SSA software they have provided their client with. Although they were the minds behind the said innovation, the fact that they have already sold it to their client makes the copyright of the said software belonging to their client at the point of payment. John’s utilization of the SSA and his gaining profit from such utilization strongly indicate a breach of contract. Under this particular law, it is stipulated that whatever has been agreed upon by two or more parties should be put into writing and should be honored accordingly by those involved in it. Considerably, not being able to honor such code of honor between client and provider makes a distinct impact on the value of the agreement created.

            In the case of John and Victor, once the copyright has been sold to their clients, they are having no more right using the said program for either personal or business use. The fact that they have gained profit from such operation makes such act considered as a form of stealing. Another consideration to note is Victor’s role in the case. True, he did not directly engage in the act, however, being a partner of John, he had the responsibility to make sure that the agreement was clearly followed. Knowing what his partner was doing and not acting upon it subjects him to the same condition of judgment that John would be held accountable for. The reason behind this is the fact that partners in business are considered as one unit, an entity that exists as one. Whatever the other commits, the other is directly affected and at some point considered involved.

            These two particular concepts of the law ought to be applied in determining the role of Victor and John in the mal-use of the SSA program outside of the agreement that they have with their client to whom they have already sold the program. Committing these acts simply hold John and Victor both accountable to the legal sanctions of doing their business.