Cyber Law Case Study and Analysis: In re & Montclair State

This assignment analyzes two cyber law case studies: In re Mobilactive Media, LLC, and Montclair State Univ. v. Oracle, Inc. The first case involves a dispute over damages related to an asset sale and the application of asset sharing laws within the context of cyber law. The second case examines a breach of contract claim and alleged intellectual property infringement concerning computer software implementation and data misinterpretation. The analysis for each case includes stating the facts, discussing the issues, outlining the arguments presented by the parties, and identifying the applicable cyber laws, along with a conclusion. The assignment follows APA format and includes peer-reviewed scholarly references.

Running head: CYBER LAW
Cyber Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CYBER LAW
Table of Contents
Paper 1: In re - Mobilactive Media, LLC...................................................................................2
Stating the facts of the case....................................................................................................2
Discussion of the issues.........................................................................................................2
Discussion of the arguments..................................................................................................2
Stating the applicable cyber law to the case...........................................................................3
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................4
Paper 2: Montclair State Univ. v. Oracle, Inc............................................................................4
Stating the facts of the case....................................................................................................4
Discussion of the issues.........................................................................................................4
Discussion of the arguments..................................................................................................5
Stating the applicable cyber law to the case...........................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................6

2CYBER LAW
Paper 1: In re - Mobilactive Media, LLC
Stating the facts of the case
As per the specified case study described in the reply to the ‘In re - Mobilactive
Media, LLC’, it was a case of the misunderstanding of the court. The understanding that was
identified to be applicable in this case was dependent on the idea behind the
misunderstanding that was claimed for both the plaintiff and the defendant is the solution
regarding the claiming of an award that specifically mentioned that has been a mistake from
the part of the court. The plaintiff and the defendant both shared the idea about the court for
having a misunderstanding of the outcome of the decision that was made before and the
earlier decision would have been better if the factual and the legal principles were taken care
of.
Discussion of the issues
The issues that have been raised in this particular case has been the inconsideration
about the legal and factual principles once the earlier decision was taken. There were some
specific information regarding the case that were found out about the case, where previously
it was established that the court had possibly undervalued the damages award from the
perspective of the plaintiff and on the other hand, it was established that the defendants
believed that the court had been overvaluing the same award. The court has established that
both the motions should not be accepted. This is the point where the Proposed Final Order
and Judgement was challenged for further ruling of the court as per the outcome of the
previous court verdict. The plaintiff and the defendant both highlighted the same issue about
the court and pointed out that the court did not provide proper verdict.

3CYBER LAW
Discussion of the arguments
The arguments have represented the fact that the court has failed to acknowledge the
case of the asset sale between Adenyo and Motricity. There was another argument about the
allocation of the operations and the proper identification of the percentages of the operations
that would require the line of business for the organization of Mobilactive. This would
require the involvement of the different laws applicable to the country that the organization is
currently established in, which is North America and the cost of operations that would be
applicable to the line of business and the operational costs. This is why the issue is being
brought up to the court again about the misjudgement of the court without taking the different
applicable costs into consideration.
Stating the applicable cyber law to the case
Silverback was first and foremost bound by contract to Mobilactive about the
products and services. Silverback did not have the right to expand their business at the
occurrences of any business opportunities that would require the expansion of the business
related to the enhancement of the interactive video programming without taking permission
from the Mobilactive organization. Therefore, since the country also has to include the laws
in Northern America, where the organization has been established in, the court needs to
identify all the issues that abide by the asset sharing laws as per the cyber laws in Northern
America.
The Asset Sharing Law for the Northern America is applicable in this regard for the
sharing of the opportunities of the business expansion that the organization did not follow.
This law states that the sharing of the assets and cyber information in multilateral agreements
between organizations are to abide by the natural sharing of information and should follow all
the terms and conditions agreed by both the organizations. If any information is not shared,

4CYBER LAW
including the opportunity of the expansion of business, the organization in the contract would
be adhered to further punishments as per the cyberlaw.
Conclusion
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that the court was under question for
miscalculating the assets between the two organizations when one of them failed to follow
the contract regarding the sharing of the assets. The court condemned the claims of the
plaintiff and the defendant regarding the claims and dismissed both of them, which was a
fault in their part.
Paper 2: Montclair State Univ. v. Oracle, Inc.
Stating the facts of the case
In this particular case about the Montclair State University and Oracle, the plaintiff is
the Montclair State University and the defendant is Oracle USA Inc. The plaintiff has
claimed that the defendant is responsible for or breaching the computer software of the
plaintiff while they have been on an agreement to implement the enterprise resource planning
computer system. It was the claim of the Montclair State University that being and higher
education institution in the state of New Jersey the existing enterprise resource planning
Computer system was being planned to be replaced with Oracle version and has claimed that
the organisation has hacked onto the system to breach their computers. How about the
defendants is claimed that Oracle represented the base system for addressing the
overwhelming majority of the business requirement that Montclair had that could not support
the base system. The representations during the negotiation of the bidding process claim that
the limited number of employees and resources did not suffice what Montclair was asking for
and hence their system is crashed.

5CYBER LAW
Discussion of the issues
While Oracle was working on the BTI Project, Montclair alleges that it was
dissatisfied with Oracle’s work on several fronts. It claimed that the Project could not suffice
the RFP process and customisation was required for the business requirements of Montclair.
Oracle had fail to deliver the functional financial management system and Montclair also
represented to the Superior Court of New Jersey about the allegations of a fraudulent
inducement claim and several other claims of gross negligence misinterpretation claim and
breach of contract claims including breach of implied covenant of good faith and scheduling
claim and declaratory judgement claim. During the motion for dismissal oracle asked to
dismiss the amendments of fraudulent inducement claim the breach of contract claims and the
misinterpretation claim. It was evident that amendment of complaint for failure to a state
claim was persistent.
Discussion of the arguments
The argument was regarding the review of the motions where the plaintiff complained
about out father dismissal of failure to state the claim. The standards of Twombly were
appeared to be applicable with legal conclusions to the plaintiff and Oracle already focused
on the motions that the university had brought about regarding the fraudulent inducement
claim arguing that all the related doctrines of economic laws and parallel evidence with
integration clauses and agreements the parties where barring the claim for the university.
Stating the applicable cyber law to the case
The applicable cyber law that would be useful in this misinterpretation of data and
trying to hack into to an existing software was are there to the cyber law for breaching the
intellectual property of an individual or an organisation. It was proved that the fraud claims
by the university was indeed considered to be true to their facts and oracle have tried to hack

6CYBER LAW
into their computer system. Trying to reach the data and information from the university was
susceptible to the cyber law.
Conclusion
Therefore, as a concluding factor, it can be said that as per the presented case as above
by Montclair State University two Oracle incorporations about stealing their ingenious
computer software, the court of New Jersey alleged that Oracle was involved in fraudulent
inducement claim. Discussing the arguments, it can also be said that regular conclusions of
the plaintiff and Oracle was already focused on the motions at the University had brought and
therefore the law for breaching intellectual property of an organisation or a particular
individual would be applicable to Oracle incorporations. The cyber law is applicable to
Oracle as per the state cyber laws of New Jersey.

7CYBER LAW
Bibliography
Hamilton, A., & Jay, R. (2013). Data protection: law and practice. London: Sweet &
Maxwell.
Saini, H., Rao, Y. S., & Panda, T. C. (2015). Cyber-crimes and their impacts: A
review. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(2), 202-
209.