Unit 1 Week 1:
An antitrust law that was the first United States Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies that was signed July 2, 1980 is called Sherman Antitrust Act. This act allows the US federal government to take the legal action against firms in the formation of trusts as a means of dissolution (Sherman, 2013). Therefore, Goliath and Junior are not correct. The relationships that exists which restrain trade and commerce are strictly forbidden and deemed illegal (Sherman, 2013). Since Goliath is the owner, he is liable for Juniors’ infractions. Junior, Ltd is a business under Goliath which is an American founded company that company is subject to the law.
They have many other options they can pursue. They could attempt to prove that the trade restraint has only positive outcomes or use the immunity clause that proves that they did not harm the exporting activities of other export competitors within the nation called the “exporting association” (Antitrust: An Overview, 2013).
Goliath opened Junior to gain more control over certain aspects of the company and therefore make more profit for the company. The economy of the foreign country and US country could benefit from this type of business, however, the company stands the most to gain. The political views of the US are that the company is trying to make more money outside the US while the political views of the foreign country are pleased with the increase in their country. The actions of Junior will reflect on Goliath, which means their social interactions should be closely guarded, especially in countries which may not do business the same way American’s do. Since Junior, Ltd is a subsidiary of Goliath, an American founded company, Goliath, Inc is legally responsible for the actions Junior takes.
References:
Antitrust: An Overview. (n.d.) Business Law. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 29 August 2013 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/antitrust.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Retrieved 28 August 2013 from SHRM: http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/FederalStatutesRegulationsandGuidanc/Pages/ShermanAnti-TrustActof1890.aspx.

Unit 1 Week 2:
Having combinations form as early as the Middle ages, a cartel according to free dictionary is "a combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members (2013)." A common arrangement that brings the organization together is to regulate prices, output, or dividing up markets. The common policies combine them; however the cartel members keep their separate identities and financial independence. Fixing process, allocation of sales quotas, production activities among members, and agreements of sale, discounts, and terms are the most common practices employed by cartels (Cartel, Encyclopaedia, 2013).
A common cartel portrayed in the news is the Mexican Drug cartel that are the number one drug supplier to the US and are moving more men deeper into the US. This Cartel is a threat to the US due to the organized crime they bring. They bring money, drugs, guns, and much more into the US. Once in the US they sell the drugs for more money, and use the drugs to kill people. They are also involved with money laundering, kidnapping, and prostitution (Mexican, 2013).
References:
Cartel. Retrieved 8 September 2013 from Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/97205/cartel.

Cartel. Retrieved 8 September 2013 from Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cartel.
Mexican drug cartels move deeper into United States to maximize profits. Retrieved 8 September 2013 from NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mexican-drug-cartels-move-deeper-u-s-article-1.1304401.

Unit 2 Week 1:
MBI delivered their military tanks to Country D with the faith that the country would pay for them, however the country is claiming they are defective, which has not stopped them from using them in battle. MBI sued the country in its courts only to have the breach of contract dismissed since their army is immune to suits in their courts. A judicial doctrine called sovereign immunity prevents the government from being sued without its consent. It stems from an English principle that is ancient that states the monarch can do no wrong (Sovereign Immunity, 2013). When the military of Country D entered the contract with MBI, a company who supplied the tanks from Country C, the army has no immunity in Country C and therefore can be brought up on charges in Country C.
It can be considered ethical for MBI to bring up charges against Country D in Country C’s courts since that is where the company’s branch is located. Since Country D is currently using the tanks provided on their front lines, the company has a right to expect payment. The legal aspects of bringing up charges in Country C’s court for Country D’s army will depend on the two countries legal systems. If the two countries are allies or peaceful with each other, Country C’s courts may not be willing to jeopardize the alliance or peace to settle this dispute, likewise, if the two countries are at war with each other or enemies, Country C may be willing to hear the case in its courts just to seek vengeance or to inflict punishment on the county. Depending on the countries legal system and what was signed in their contract, the company may legally be able to seek retribution in Country C’s courts.
The US business who deals with manufacturing and selling military equipment will deal with problems with foreign military agents. One problem that can arise is that the same country who buys the equipment may use that equipment against the US, the US has many allies and selling only to them would probably not be a wise decision for the company, however if the company only sells “last year’s model” to the countries who are not our allies, then the US will stay ahead of anyone who might want to use them against us. The US company should expect to meet a lot of resistance because of the barriers to foreign military sales. There are multiple agencies, defenses, and lists that the company will have to go thru on the US side while simultaneously managing the business development on the foreign end. The company will have an extended timeline in doing business. The company can expect to be fined, under the current export laws, if the product is misused (Boland, 2011).
References:
Boland, Rita. (June 2011). Selling Overseas Is a Two-Way Challenge. Retrieved 11 September 2013 from Signal Online: http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/2633.
Sovereign Immunity. Retrieved 11 September 2013 from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+Immunity.

Unit 2 Week 2:
The governor of a country or state, should put a limit on the companies that manufacture military equipment such as weapons, tanks, etc. If the company sells the equipment to a company we are currently not fighting against, but may potentially fight, such as Syria, simply to make a profit, then sells the same product to the US to help with the fight, we would potentially go to war with someone who knows everything there is to know about our equipment and could defeat us with that knowledge. The restrictions set in place are adequate since there is no one we are fighting against that is gathering our equipment.
By purchasing military equipment from another country, the first country runs the risks of getting subpar equipment. For instance, if China decided they wanted to go to war with the US, they might first start selling subpar equipment, such as bulletproof vest that doesn’t stop bullets or guns that malfunction 9 times out of 10. Then once the US military had this subpar equipment, they could fight the US without the worry of us having better equipment; because they know what they sold us is subpar. Purchasing individual components for military equipment is different from buying the finished product, like buying a part for a car, you could run the risk of buying the wrong part. This could also open up the door to buying subpar equipment. If a company selling the firing pin of the M4 to an outside buyer, they could sell them something made of a subpar metal rather than the hard metal needed to make the M4 work properly. Unit 3 Week 1:
The Coca-Cola Company is a nonalcoholic beverage company that offers ready to drink beverages. It is the world’s largest beverage company and the most recognized brand. The country in which a business operates is directly related to the success of the business. Since the company has to abide by the laws, the government and their role in the country will also have a direct relation to how well the company does. Coke has engaged in environmental and health-related initiatives and well as made strides to end child labor in sugarcane harvesting with the Salvadoran government. The company wants to make sure their company keeps a good public image when the customer thinks of their brand. The policies make sure that the environment the workers are in will not harm them nor the people around them and the policies also protect children from child labor (Oxfam America, 2013).
Since the inception of e-commerce people have easy access to information as fast speeds. One common issue it that the media will cover issues before the whole story is out or before all the facts are in. As an example, if Coke hired a 15 year old (when the working age is 16 years old) in a foreign country to harvest its sugarcane without properly checking his age, the media will report that they are using children for child labor, even though the child lied to achieve the position. This makes these types of policies all the more important since the company does not want this type of bad publicity.
The European market has gone up due to raw materials. Keeping a close look into the portfolios a company has is an important step in determining to invest in another country. The best way to help the US market is to invest back into the US market. By investing into another countries market, a company can make money but they are hurting the US market. One thing about helping the US market is to invest in the market to create more of a demand for things made in the US.
References
Oxfam America, The Coca-Cola Company and SABMiller. (n.d.) Exploring the links between international business and poverty reduction. Retrieved 29 September 2013 from http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/65/2c/2b471df6404f82740affb96f9c6a/poverty_footprint_report.pdf.

Unit 3 Week 2:
The rise in the use of the internet may begin to cause trouble for many companies. Companies may offer their employees a smart phone in order to do business, however this can become a slippery slope if the employees are not monitored and regulated for its usage. A cell phone registered to a company that searches pornography, or something worse, can come back to bite the company in the rear end. When this issue is discovered and investigated, this will become public knowledge. Even though this was an individual’s problem, it now becomes the company’s problem because it was their phone.
Investing in another country is a slippery slope as well. A country that has investments in a country that suddenly goes to war could lose a lot of money. As one example, when the World Trade Centers were hit, the stock market also took a hit. This type of thing can happen anywhere, at anytime. If an American company invests in another country, the other country could be trying to make the American company lose money. The foreign company could forge its financial documents that the American company sees in order to gain money and hurt the company. It is a smart move to invest in a country that is a US ally. Knowing the risks can keep a company from a lot of trouble.

Unit 4 Week 1:
The court should not overturn the decision of Customer Service because GATT mandates the safeguard interest of the World Trade Organization (WTO) members. States A and B are WTO members which means the customs department is required to estimate the value of goods and services based on the customs valuation code which will determine the tariffs and taxes. The WTO agreement for customs valuation provides a valuation of goods through fair and neutral practices. It also outlaws arbitrary and fictitious values (Mayer & Bixby, 2012). This is how businesses are run, you put out a product, you sell it, and you make a profit, if a company can make the same product for cheaper, they can sell it for cheaper and beat out another company for profits while taking customers. State B’s company must try to find a better way to make the product and sell it at a better price, or add more qualities to the product that are appealing to the customer in order to get their customers back and be competitive.
The social problems that can occur with two companies competing in the same state are that the two companies will compete for the lowest prices and best product in order to gain customers; this can lead to some fights among the two CEOs. The political problems that can occur with two companies competing in the same state are that the government can put a limit on the amount of product that can be sold, which can hurt the bottom line of both companies. The economic problems that can occur with two companies competing in the same state are while competing to have the lowest price; the companies could end up losing money. The legal problems that can occur with two companies competing in the same state are if one companies steals or is perceived to steal the idea of the other company, they can be sued. The implications for the community are that the customers can gain the product at a lower price. The implications for the employee relations are that the employees will work hard but may not receive the recognition they feel they deserve.
References
Mayer, D. & Bixby, M. (2012). International Business Law: Text, Cases, and Readings (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Unit 4 Week 2:
Every business has a single goal, to earn profits. With each business, no matter how unique, there will be competition at some point. A company that comes up with a single idea will sell it then another person will come along and make the product better or with more features and sell it. The key is to try to stay ahead of the game. Take a look at two major cell phone manufactures and the products they have come out with recently. Apple made the iPhone and Samsung made the Galaxy Note. Both are similar products, I actually know someone who switches between the two phones, with different features. Once a new iPhone comes out, a new Galaxy comes out or vise verse. These products are sold to similar consumers for different prices and they sell well. In order to stay competitive, a company will try to stay ahead of the competition while still catering to the consumers needs. If Apple took Galaxy to court over selling their products to the same customers, they would not win either because there is no real business without competition. What is everyone elses thoughts on this matter?

Unit 5 Week 1:
A patent is a government authority which allows the sole right to exclude others from making an invention for a set period (Patent, 2013). The law that was broken was that Green Chemical, Ltd used Omni Chemical Co.’s patented product and sold it under another name. The patent should not be revoked since it State Y granted the patent after running it in the Official Journal with not oppositions.
This dispute would affect the community by causing the community not to have competing companies to find a lower price for the product. This dispute would affect the employees of the companies because Green Chemical, Ltd could close down due to this dispute which cost the employees their jobs. The social problems with the broken law is that Green Chemical, Ltd went behind Omni Chemical Co. to sale their product under another name. The legal problems with the broken law is that a patent is a binding document that has to be followed, by everyone. The economic problems with the broken law is that without Green Chemical, Ltd, the economy looses the revenue from that company. The political problems with the broken law is when the courts make a decision, the politicians may decide to get involved.
References:

Patent. Retrieved from 3 November 2013 from The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patent.