IndexAbstractLegal issues surrounding the "widget" scenarioAngry California customerWidget lawsuit defectiveDefamatory blog postsGerman terroristsConclusionAbstractThis paper analyzes the legal issues that could arise in a scenario where multiple legal events occur. In the scenario, a customer receives a defective product from your Delaware-based all-online business. They then file a lawsuit against the company, starting a blog that spreads lies and damages the company's reputation, claiming their constitutional rights as a defense. Additionally, a foreign terrorist group steals intellectual property owned by the company and attempts extortion of money. Each of these issues will be analyzed and discussed in the context of the various laws under which they may fall. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayLegal Issues Surrounding the “Widget” ScenarioFor the purposes of this document, a hypothetical scenario is provided that focuses on multiple legal incidents surrounding a product I created and sell online under the name “Widget”. The first incident occurs 6 months after starting the Delaware-based strictly online business to sell the widget. A customer in California receives a defective widget and files a lawsuit against me. The same person later starts a blog claiming that my Widget business is a front for the distribution of child pornography and as a result my income decreases. While attempting to shut down the website, the customer is asserting their First Amendment right to free speech in expressing their opinion. At the same time, a second incident occurs in this scenario where German terrorists steal the widget idea and try to extort money from me. They claim they will use it for harm unless I pay, prompting me to report the matter to the local police. Given the incidents that occurred in these hypothetical situations, any legal issues and possible avenues of defense or prosecution will be discussed in the following sections. Angry California Customer With the customer receiving a defective widget, there are a couple of separate legal issues that need to be addressed. One is the fact that they took me to court for a faulty widget, and the other is the defamatory statements they are publishing about my business. The first issue could potentially relate to online contracting as an e-business, as well as jurisdiction in their lawsuit against my company. The second issue concerns the potential liability for defamatory statements, as well as the First Amendment constitutional issues raised when the person claimed that I was trying to violate their rights by attempting to shut down the blog. The first problem will be discussed first. Defective Widget Lawsuit Since I sold someone a product online, one might infer that we entered into some form of contract. According to Craig (2013), “website owners can contractually limit their liability and the remedies available to a plaintiff under the [Uniform Commercial Code]” (p. 81). Therefore, if I had a limited liability statement, I could potentially avoid litigation over the defective widget. This could have been done through a liquidated damages clause, or another statement that could have provided limited remedies and placed a limit on my liabilities, as Craig explains (p. 81). The other issue in question concerns thejurisdiction, where Craig explains that subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear the case, while personal jurisdiction is the power of the court to actually bring a party to court (p. 3). Since there is no specific court that hears cases related to the receipt of defective products, the California personal jurisdiction to which I submit my business court is the only relevant jurisdictional issue. The California Long Arm Statute states that “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10). That said, Craig writes that the defendant (me) must have intentionally conducted his or her business with a resident of the state, while the complaint must also directly concern this business that was conducted, and it must also be reasonable and fair according to due process rights of the Constitution (p. 3). Since I appear to meet this criteria, the angry customer may file a lawsuit against me as a California resident, while my business is operated from Delaware. Defamatory Blog Posts The second problem with the angry California customer is the fact that they have started a public blog claiming that my Widget business is a front for the distribution of child pornography. According to Craig (2013), the four common elements to prove defamation are “(1) that the defendant made a defamatory communication to a third person, (2) that the statement was false, (3) that the defendant made made a mistake in communicating what happened. statement, and (4) that the plaintiff has suffered harm” (p. 164). While points 2, 3 and 4 are obviously satisfied given the scenario, point 1 is also satisfied, as Craig writes: "It is established that publishing material on a website satisfies the publication requirements for defamation" (p. 164). While I may be able to prove that the client has made defamatory statements, defending them is where things could get complicated. The defendant claims that they have the right to assert their opinion regarding the defamatory statements and claims that I am violating their rights Constitutional rights. Craig (2013) writes that statements that are not parody, satire, or protected opinion but contain a fact that can be verified (such as true or false), the person who made the statement can be held liable (p. 174). However, speaking about another case involving defamatory opinions and statements, Rasmussen (2011) states that “allegedly defamatory comments posted on anonymous blogs or in widely distributed emails such as the one considered by the court also lack the level of credibility that readers would lend to similar observations made in other contexts” (p. 30). One might therefore assume that my company might encounter some problems given the context in which the statement is in a non-credible format. If the defendant were found to have made statements deemed defamatory, then he would not be protected by the constitutional rights he claims, since Craig writes that defamatory words are not protected by the First Amendment (p. 160). German Terrorists Now that the issue of the angry Californian customer is out of the way, the issue of the German terrorist organization can be discussed. Jurisdiction, intellectual property and cybercrime will be the main topics that will influence how my company deals with the situation. Since the widget is a scientific product, as outlined in the scenario, I would most likely have filed a patent for this invention. In Patent Law, Craig (2013).