Research Paper on:
Pat Parker and Associates (Case Study Analysis)

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
(Mursten, 1995). It was research ear-marked for a particular campaign but never used (Mursten, 1995). A central question in this case study is whether or not this research may  be resold at a later date. In fact, it was requested and a money amount equivalent to what the Democrats paid was offered and when negotiations were in effect, it  was mentioned that there were postcards attached to some of the unmailed research (Mursten, 1995). The point, as it is relayed, is that there is a suggestion that the  election might have turned out differently had the postcards actually been mailed and soon, the trial lawyers who wanted to buy the research, also wanted to purchase the unmailed postcards  (Mursten, 1995). Parker, who is the one being made the offer, is not sure of the legality of all of this (Mursten, 1995). According to this case study, Parker  reviews the contract made with the Democratic party, and it clearly states that the firm owns the research (Mursten, 1995). There is a right to sell clause (Mursten, 1995).  However, the case notes the following: "But the client might argue that the Campaign held the copyright to the research" (Mursten, 1995, p.6). The case goes on to  note that copyright law suggests that when there is a work for hire arrangement, the employer is considered to be the author, and he owns the copyright (Mursten, 1995).  Yet, Pat believes he can contest such a claim to the copyright due to paragraph 11 because the research had no copyright notice on it and the last page contained  a note saying that the materials are only to be used for the present campaign cycle (Mursten, 1995). Questions posed by the case study are numerous as Parker has