In this case, IBM developed the dial-up-era dinosaur programme which was developed with the aim of connecting the customers with the company through the social media networks. This however, was similar to a similar product that had been developed by The Groupon Ltd. Groupon went further to obtain a patent to bar the other companies from using the similar product. This product as per the business ethics were said to be unfair in terms of being unfair to Groupon since it had the patent to the product (Vanian, 2016).
The case brought before the court is one which was brought in place by Groupon seeking compensation and further seeking other equitable remedies for this infringement of its intellectual property rights. However, the counsel of IBM stated that they had sought the go ahead of Groupon earlier, pertaining to the development of their product. This case they said was brought as a way of tackling the case that was brought before the courts against them and this was just a malicious and a nonsensical case (Amina 2016).
The fact that IBM carried out its activities in a manner that goes against the set and agreed standards of that particular group, Groupon limited has the right to seek for compensation due to this infringement. This is due to the fact that the companies have an already set clear guideline which sets the actions that the various companies can and cannot carry out. Ethical or unethical behaviour and judgment usually occur in situations that raise ethical considerations or issues (Manuel, Andre, Shanks and Meyer, 2016). An ethical concern is a predicament, circumstances or opportunity requiring an individual or business to pick among numerous conducts that must be evaluated as right or wrong, ethical or unethical (Ferrell, 1991)
The managerial teams are in most times tasked with the responsibility of making decisions and these decisions should be in such a way that will lead to the fairness of the business that they are involved in . this has in turn led to the development of various approaches which tend if used by the managerial teams always try to steer the group’s activities in a desired manner. These approaches are;
Deontology
This approach is one which is said to be the approach that requires that the morality of an action compared to the way the individuals adhere to the rules that develop them. This approach is said that the good is always shown in the person’s activities. This approach is that which shows that our actions at times may at times go against our norms. Nevertheless, a proper incentive on its own is not a validation for an exploit in a typical deontological just system and can never be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct (Kelley and Elm, 2003). These actions are said to be inferred from the rules given by God and hence they are said not to be manmade and they are dictated by the director’s personal law. This has reciprocated in the deontologists thinking in a certain way (Minks 2013).
This was been developed by Immanuel Kant’s theory and he states that the repercussion of a willing act can never be factored in deciding that the individual is of good will; positive results could come accidentally from an activity whose main intention was to inflict mischief or damage to an unsuspecting individual. On the other hand, undesired result could emerge from a well-motivated activity. As an alternative, he claims that if an individual harbours good will then he or she will “act out of respect for moral law’’ (Reath, 1989).
The way the deontologists tend to think is that the right is said to have priority over the desired (Granitz and Lowey, 2007). If an act is not in line with the right, it may not be undertaken, regardless of the good that it might produce.The way the managers think at times may reciprocated in them showing the agents of the company (Granitz and Lowey, 2007).
An agent-relative reason is an intent rationale, similar to agent-neutral rationales; it should never be mistaken for the slanted intent upon which psychological justifications of the actions human are based
Different types of Deontological ethics may at times lead to determining how the various managers would make their decisions. For example, the contractarianism example requires that in cases that an individual is making the right decision and then he or she is required to take into account the various already set rules and guidelines. So what this reciprocates to is the fact that in this case, when it comes to making the decisions, the managerial team will have to take into consideration various factors for example, the rules governing the particular activity. In this case they will have to take into consideration the various laws. This meant that in this case, they didn’t, take into consideration the intellectual property laws that were required to govern the product (Ferell, 1991).
The way the deontologists think, they are able to show in various levels. These are the unadulterated deontologist portrayed is the tortuous or else two-level consequentialist. Since this view also aims to apposite the mutual strong sides of consequentialism and deontology, not by accommodating both, but by evidencing that a suitably expounded form of either can work in the place of both. The tortuous consequentialist obviously attempts to achieve this mainly from consequentialism point of view in totality (Lahdesmaki, 2005).
This approach can be likened with the justice and fairness approach and this can be seen below;
Justice and FairnessApproach
This approach is one which required that in cases that the decisions are supposed to be reached, they must be done in a manner that is based on the desired standards and further be one which is fair, impartial and upholds the notion of equity amongst the other members of that particular group. In the Groupon Limited Vs IBM Co counter-claim may be said to be one which the decision makers of the Defendant did not take into account as they made the decision of bringing into the market the dial-up-era dinosaur, which they clearly knew that Groupon had in place a similar service, but with a different name. This in turn means that the actions were some which were not brought in place with the aim of promoting justice and fairness between the two companies.
However, from the set standards of the business society, where both the parties are members to, the mere fact that an individual has the patent of the particular product, it doesn’t matter what they do or don’t do with it. From the set ethics of the business society, the infringement of the patent will be said to be one which is against intellectual property and hence Groupon has the right to sue IBM for their actions.
Further, this justice approach has further been divided into different types, and they are required to be taken into account as the various ethical decisions are being decided upon (Jones, Felps, and Bigley, 2007).
Procedural justice
This requires that laws and rules must be followed to the latter and these laws must be set in a clear and definite manner and in cases that need be that they be applied, they must be enforced in an impartial manner.Over the years the issue of one company infringing the other’s intellectual property is no news to us and the courts have always taken the side of the claimant. For example, in the case of Apple IncVs Samsung Limited, the courts decided that by the mere fact of the products being a like in terms of their functioning, then the Defendant was liable to pay damages to the claimant for this infringement.
So in this case, it would seem to be unjust for the courts or tribunal to allow IBM to go against the set work ethics, since the procedural justice dictates that the ethics in these cases are normally dictated by the set rules of the governing law will always dictate the way the various companies carry out their activities, and in this case the intellectual property law, dictates that person, be it a juridical or a natural person, should not infringe the rights of another person when it comes to his or her intellectual property.
Compensatory Justice
This is the branch of this approach that requires that in cases that a person’s rights have been infringed, he or she has the right to seek compensation for the injuries that they have suffered. In this case of Groupon Ltd Vs IBM Co, then the counterclaim brought by the claimant for equitable rights is justified. The tribunal or court that will be determining this case should be just in the way they will determine the case and this compensatoryjustice approach is one which they should have in mind in determining the case.
The Utilitarian Approach
This approach is one that has been developed from the mid-18th century and it is one that requires that the decision that is decided upon must be one which is the fairest and for it to be the one that causes the least harm. The decisions that are arrived upon by the managerial teams are always required to be those that will always reciprocate in being the best decisions and these decisions must be those that will cause the least or no harm to the other party.
In the Groupon Ltd Vs IBM case, then then it can be inferred whether the action of coming up with a similar product which intervened the patent was one which was the fairest and it would reciprocate in the least harmful way in the eyes of the claimant.
When one views these actions of IBM in the case, he or she is able to see that it was a decision that was decided with the best in mind. This means that IBM’s actions were fair in that they were brought in place with the aim of bringing with it healthy competition and breaking the monopoly that Groupon Ltd had tended to hold in the society (Justkin 2013).
Further, it can be said that in the case the actions of IBM were those that would reciprocate in the least possible harm to Groupon Ltd, since, they took the patent at a time that social media was not a part of the society as much as it is at the moment. With the changing and developing society in terms of the use of technology, then the use of social media is a vital part in the business today. This means that, the action of them coming up with the product was a vital part for their growth and this will in turn not harm Groupon Ltd and this proved that the managerial team took into account this approach when they were making the decision on developing the product.
This utilitarian approach was inferred from the writings of Jeremy Bentham who came up with the principles. In the principles, he clearly states that at times, the action will in turn bring the amount of pain or pleasure due to the consequences. In the case IBM and Groupon, the consequences of the actions of infringing the intellectual rights of Groupon, will be weighed to the actions that led to the infringement. When one infers these principles this will mean that if the action is more productive as compared to the consequences, then the action will be justified (Linstead and Liley, 2009). This may be inferred as the normal saying of ‘the end justifying the means’ and hence the actions of IBM will be considered to be just.
This however, is different with the line of thought of John Stuart Mill, since he claimed that in instances that a person does a wrong, then the level of the happiness of the other individual will be the main determinant of whether the infringement will be justifiable or not. In this case, then the quality of happiness of Groupon, as per Mills, the happiness levels of Groupon will be what will be taken into account. Further, he culminates that in these cases, the greatest happiness principle will be taken into account.
References
Amina Elahi (2016). Groupon strikes back against 'once-great' IBM in lawsuit. Chicago Tribute. Retrieved on May 27, 2016 from http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ct-groupon-strikes- ibm-patent- suit-bsi-20160509-story.html
Douglas, P.C., Davidson, R.A. and Schwartz, B.N(.2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants' ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34,101-121.
Ferrell, O.C., and Gresham, L.G. (1991).A contingent framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3): 87-96.
Granitz, N. and Loewy, D. 2007. Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responsibility to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72: 293-306.
Vanian, Jonathan, (2016) .Groupon goes to war with IBM over software patents. Fortune Article Retrieved on May 27 2016 from http://fortune.com/2016/05/09/groupon-sues- ibm-software/
Jones, T.M., Felps, W., and Bigley, G.A. 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder –related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 137-155
Minks, Justing (2013) Guide to ethics and moral philosophy. V.0.9. Retrieved on May 27, 2016 from http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/
Kelley, P.C., and Elm, D.R. (2003). The effect of context on moral intensity issues: Revising jones's issue – contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics: 48: 139-154
Lahdesmaki, M. (2005).When ethics matters – interpreting the ethical discourse of small nature – based entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 55-68.
Linstead, S., Fulop, L., & Lilley, S. (2009). Management and organization: A critical text. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer (2016), Thinking ethically, Santa Clara University
Reath, A. (1989). Kant’s theory of moral sensibility. Respect for the moral law and the influence of inclination. Kant-Studien, 80(1-4), 284-302.
