Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Post #1 Apple Vs. Samsung, Technologies and Patents from Professional Ethics View

Post #1
Technologies and Patents from Professional Ethics View
Apple Vs. Samsung
Some articles explaining Apple Vs. Samsung case.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2012/08/28/apple-a-monopoly-it-could-happen/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/08/apple-versus-samsung
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/08/26/why-the-apple-vs-samsung-verdict-is-a-big-mistake/
 
            Hi my name is Jesse I'm taking Computer Ethics this fall at the University of Montana and would like to use this blog to discuses ethical issues involving cyber ethics. The stand I take is neither right or wrong the point is to have and educated and informed conversation involving cyber ethics.
            You might have heard recently that Apple won a Controversial case over Samsung a South Korean Based company. Apple sued Samsung over patents concerning the Apple's new version of the iphone (iPhone 5) and their tablets. Apple won the court case in California with a restitution of 1 billion to be paid by Samsung to Apple and Samsung is not allowed to sell their tablet 10.1 in the United States. What interest me most about this article is that some of the patents that Apple won against Samsung are controversial. Things like a rectangle shaped smart phone. I'm not sure how ethical the actions by these two corporations are, but it seems like you shouldn't be able to have a patent on a geometrical shape. It's like if a cereal company had a patent on a cereal box that's rectangle, every cereal box is rectangle but other cereals are not suing over it. I think one thing Apple realizes is the design of the phone plays huge into marketing the phone but Apple has become the most valued company in history (before it was Microsoft which peeked in late 1999). So one could say that its not ethical for Apple to sue Samsung because the are already worth so much that they should allow equal opportunity for other companies to progress. The one thing that comes to mind is that Apple has the potential or if not already a monopoly and there are currant laws that forbid monopolies that maybe should be applied to Apple (Microsoft went through monopoly regulations). People have mentioned in other articles that granting Apple this win slowdowns the progress or further development by other companies by limiting them to things like geometric shapes on phones. People have been using things like geometric shapes to build and create things for thousands of years why should Apple get the soul right to certain shapes concerning development of technologies. Determining what is ethically right for these companies is hard to decide. Apply ethical theories might help us determine what these companies are doing ethical wrong. Utilitarianism Theory might imply that Apple shouldn't sue Samsung because less technology will be available to the population potentially causing problems such as lack of educationa and opportunity, brought on by the court case. Utilitarianism basically boils down to maximizes overall "happiness" of the majority of the population. If Apple hadn't of sued there is a great potential to maximizes overall "happiness" of the majority of the population. One flaw might be that of is Samsung is stealing form Apple and that is morally wrong. My argument is that even if they're stealing its benefiting to the majority of the population and therefore can be ethically viable under Utilitarianism.
When leaving a post here are some questions I came up with for food for thought:
What do you believe to be the ethical issues of this court case?
Can you come up to any solution to help resolve the conflict?
What ethical theories can you apply to this article?
Should the United Stated upgraded it laws for patents?
One could notice that there has been a set of standards in the production of flat screen TVs and things like basic shape are not being patented. Should Apple be able to have patents on things most companies around the world would consider a standard design for all products relating to that market?
 
 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

3 comments:

  1. EmilySeptember 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    A lot of people suggest that this isn't really a battle against Samsung though. Another article I read said that the battle got personal when Android phones started supporting multi-touch, something that was unique to the iPhone. It's Apple versus Google, and for some reason its being waged in a roundabout and kind of nasty way. In it's quest for revenge, Apple is attacking Google through other companies.

    Is it ethical for Apple to harm other companies when those companies aren't their target? Samsung, HTC, and other victims happen to support Google's operating system and have phones that are rectangular and white and have screens. Supporting Google is part of a company's right to free speech and selling a phone of common and effective shape and color hardly justifies suing someone. Perhaps because Samsung is most easily associated with it, it's been blamed for the phone's OS (like the conceptual muddles and problems of many hands we've been talking about in class).

    Can Apple's actions against Google be defended as an act of self-defense? Even if Shmidt got the idea for supporting multi-touch from Apple, he and Google had to courtesy to not include it in their OS right away. Someone was bound to expand on multi-touch eventually. Google chose to three years after iPhone's release. Sure, Android's menu layout looks very similar to the iPhone's... but so does the menu layout on my Pantech cell phone and, indeed, every cell phone I've ever owned.

    Apple has made such popular decisions in the iPhone's design that they have become standards for smart phones and cell phones. Is multi-touch one standard too many? Can Apple claim rights to the exclusive use and production of multi-touch screens, or would that be as ridiculous as a company claiming rights to the exclusive use and production of QWERTY keyboards or LCD screens?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html?_r=1

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownSeptember 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM

    You made some interesting points though I would honestly read the actual court decision instead of some misinformation that has been widely publicized. Your statement "So one could say that its not ethical for Apple to sue Samsung because the are already worth so much that they should allow equal opportunity for other companies to progress." leaves me wondering what your reasons are behind it. Do ethics really differ depending on whether you make more than your competition? Because consumers prefer your product over the competitors and propel your company forward should that give others the right to copy and steal products and ideas that you have spent billions to develop. I would say that the court case was just considering the violations of the law as well as Samsung's blatant disregard for property rights and their well documented actions and statements from executives demanding they copy features of that Apple had implemented. The patent and trademark systems are broken but this is the first case in a long time where any non-apple hating or other extreme bias could take a look at the devices, the communications from employees, the timing of the design, the warning from Google telling Samsung to change design because they were too similar to Apple, and the rest of the facts of the case and come up with any other findings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J-Rock_UofMTOctober 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM

      You made some good points but on regard to the quote of mine you state in your comment. I’m using past examples of companies like Microsoft that have gotten in trouble for monopolizing a market and have helped develop some of Americas policies on monopolies. I was trying to make a correlation between Microsoft and Apple. Another thing I was trying to point out is the fact that apple claims patents on geometric shapes.... really! you can have a patent on that? The fact that people are buying apple isn’t bad it’s the fact the company isn’t allowing for a competitive market, their monopolizing the market. Hope this helps explain a little more what I was trying to discuss. Thanks for your unique input.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)