BTW3281_-_PYQ_2017_Q2__Q3
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Alabama *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
BTW3281
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by LieutenantRainApe34
Question 2.
In 2016, Alpha Pty Ltd introduced a new type of video game
for teenagers, named Alphago. The game grew extremely popular
amongst teenagers. Alphago was sold in play sets, many of which had themes from famous movies. Alphago’s
success was due to several marketing strategies
. Due to its immediate appeal to teenagers, Alpha Pty Ltd offered play-corners with product display for free to shopping centers, on the condition that the Alphago play corners were not used for competing products
. Further, it used an aggressive strategy of paying bonuses to retailers for products display in stores
(“The better the placement, the better the price”). Alpha Pty Ltd’s financial director complained about this, as the sales marginally failed to cover the total costs of producing and marketing the video game. Moreover, Alpha Pty Ltd offered all teenagers up to the age of 17 free membership in Alphago Club. The membership worked so that upon the purchase of 5 Alphago video game of a minimum value
within one year, the teenager would receive every
second set for free the next year, Alpha Pty Ltd issued a price list, indicating a price-range (minimum and maximum)
for each product. This list was actually adhered to by all dealers.
Other business organisations were unhappy about the success of Alpha Pty Ltd, as they found Alpha Pty LTd’s business methods unfair and aggressive. Discuss the possible breaches of the law and the consequences.
Identification of the issues
The question raises the following issues,
1.
Is Alpha Pty Ltd in breach of Competition and Consumer Act 2010:
a.
Misuse of Market power,
b.
Exclusive dealing, c.
Resale price maintenance
(S46, S47, S48)
2.
What are the remedies?
Question 3. Beta Pty Ltd operates a
website
named Monash Excellence where writers can automatically publish articles to the world
without any editorial oversight from Beta Pty Ltd. In order to provide incentives for writers to publish high-quality articles, Beta Pty Ltd compensates
the writers, Beta Pty Ltd will allow writers to submit articles on any topic. However, not every article has the same potential value to Beta Pty Ltd. Furthermore, inevitably some writers will try to exploit any deficiencies in the formula to generate earnings without doing the associated work. In order to ensure the best return for its compensation.
Betty an employee
of Beta Pty Ltd has developed a unique exploitation resistant formula
to automatically determine how much each article should earn. Currently, to make exploitation harder, the exact formula has not been publicly disclosed
, although it has been used
to determine compensation for writers for a number of months
. During those months, Betty has been constantly revising
the formula to make it more exploitation-proof. Moreover, future substantial changes are likely to be needed to counteract any successful exploitations. Meanwhile, Beta Pty Ltd faces several competitors who also are trying to generate articles using an automated compensation mechanism. Beta Pty Ltd suspects none of them have reached the same solution yet. As a result Beta Pty Ltd believes that its losses to exploitation are substantially lower than its competitors (resulting in a savings of millions per year). Furthermore, Betty claims that the work she developed belongs
to her as she has put in all the effort and skill
. Beta Pty Ltd seeks your advice as to how to protect its rights from its competitors and Betty.
Beta Pty Ltd also seeks your advice
if there are any other issues it has to be mindful off. Notes:
Formulas falls under a system : As such it is not copyright but patent.
Identification of issues
The question raises the following issues,
1.
Is the unique exploitation resistant formula developed by Betty patentable under Patents Act 1990?
2.
Who has ownership developed by Betty?
3.
May Beta Pty Ltd protect the formula under commercial secrets?
4.
What are the remedies to Beta Pty Ltd? Explanation of the law
1.
What is IP : One of the category is Patent. 2.
What is the governing law in this case? 3.
Criteria of Patent. And put in Relevant cases. Electrolux Ltd v Hudson.
Application of the law
1.
Background Concluding advice
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help