Part 2 Detailed Instructions:Write a "legal memo" to Nouv on the issues presented below.This memo is "legal" only because it is a summary of the general law that applies to the issue.You do not have to do any research beyond the class books and materials presented in class.Do not restate the facts.Your memo should start with the one sentence Issue identified for each situation.You should then state your Conclusion/Recommendation to the issue in one or two sentences.You should then give your Analysis/Reasoning, relating back to the course materials for support.Each of your two "legal memos" should be no longer than one page, single spaced.

You are QP's General Counsel.Nouv has asked you to address the following issues so that he can be aware of the legal, and any potential ethical, implications:

a.QP is developing a new website that will include: (1) original art work created by third parties, (2) stories and other written materials contributed by customers and employees, (3) photos of employees working in QP's facilities, (4) QP's new "improved" logo, and (5) some innovative "click to learn more" features that no one else has ever thought about.Issue:What are the Intellectual Property implications for each of the website's features?In particular, can they be protected by IP law, if so under what type of IP law, and who owns the IP in each element?

b.One of the special applications for QP's products is in high end magnifying glasses.These magnifying glasses are intended for use in office settings where people have to read small text or look at detail in small drawings.Each magnifying glass is sold with a limited warranty (with disclaimers for the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) and a statement that the magnifying glass is "Intended for use indoors only."As it turns out, the magnifying glasses can also be used to focus sunlight on objects outdoors.Focusing the sunlight like this allows a user to, for example, start a fire by focusing the sunlight on "kindling".While playing with the magnifying glass in his back yard, Timmy (age 4) caused a severe burn to his eye as he attempted to "make the sun bigger" using QP's magnifying glass.Timmy's parents filed suit against QP.Issue:What is QP's legal exposure under U.S. product liability theories for the damage to Timmy's eye, and does QP have any legal or ethical duty to future purchasers/users of the QP magnifying glasses?