Summary of Scenario A
John Connor created a software system for a small computer firm that did not ask him to sign a contract claiming their ownership of his software. He then transferred to a larger computer firm where he realizes that his old software, with a few modifications, could be used to simplify many tasks at his new company. He decided to alter the code he wrote for the smaller computer firm and the company was very pleased with his changes and decided to take his code as their own without allowing him to contact the smaller firm that much of the same code would be used under their ownership.
Summary of Scenario B
A friend of John Connor, Kyle Reese, has connections with the employees of Cyberdyne, including the president Miles Bennett Dyson. He also knows what John has done, and knows that Miles might not be happy with the code usage.
Discussion Questions
What is the nature of the ethical dilemma(s) brought up these scenarios?
What responsibilities (ethical, legal, etc.) & various courses of action do John and Kyle have?
What resources might John & Kyle have to help them address their problems?
What ethical frameworks or variations on ethical frameworks might be employed to meet these problems?
What are the likely outcomes of each scenario and was is your group’s recommended course of action?
Group: What is your opinion on the discussion questions? Feel free to discuss and share your thoughts in the comments section!
Group: What is your opinion on the discussion questions? Feel free to discuss and share your thoughts in the comments section!
One of John's dilemmas is the choice between alerting Cyberdyne and possibly losing his current job, or staying silent and souring the relationship he has with his former company.
ReplyDeleteI think that although John's choice to stay silent doesn't necessarily feel right, It provides the better outcome for his own purposes.
Improving upon an existing piece of technology is how technology will improve. As long as there is consent from the owner of the technology, making improvements and using the software someplace else is ethical.
ReplyDeleteBefore John introduced his software to his newer employers he should have informed his boss of the situation. His boss then could work out an agreement with his older company for the proper use of the software.
I believe that John is allowed to improve on the code since he didn't sign a contract handing the ownership of his code to his former company. I don't believe that the other company needs to be notified, since they didn't make him sign a contract giving them full ownership of his code.
ReplyDeleteDifferent scenarios that may arise from John choosing to remain silent or work with Kyle include losing his job, costing his new company money in an agreement or lawsuit, or potentially getting a promotion and continuing to thrive at his new company. If John works with Kyle and the former company, president Miles Dyson may want some money for the code to be used by the new company. I don't believe the request would actually hold, however, since Miles's company does not own any of the code. If John continues to stay at his company, I believe they will either continue to utilize him in projects and value his code, unless he decides to cause more controversy and problems for them. I don't think it is ethically wrong for John to use his old code at the new company, since he knows that he signed a contract for them stating their ownership over the code, and the code he improved upon was his own to begin with. Kyle only questions John's actions with the basis that his old company owned the code, but they don't.
For this ethical dilemma, I found that the ethical dilemma centers on the question of who owns the “rights” for the software. This dilemma involves a rights framework. Examining the ownership between the software delivers several issues. Weyland-Yutani owns the software legally; John was operating within his autonomy and the idea is his, or the software is justified as Cyberdyne’s and John appropriated the software without consent.
ReplyDeleteIt can be stated that because of the contract between John and Weyland-Yutani, John was operating within his bounds as an employee and the software can be claimed as Weyland-Yutani’s. Given legal confines it can be claimed as Weyland-Yutani’s. However, given a right’s framework, Cyberdyne could fight for legal ownership of the software. John is involved in an ethical dilemma here because John must define his loyalty or virtue to Weyland-Yutani, Cyberdyne, or even himself. It can even be interpreted further that John does not owe anything to both companies, and John was operating within his own moral autonomy. Would it be considered immoral for John to hold back his ideas, even though it would advance technology? I believe that John was acting within an practical ethical code as engineer. He saw the practicality and efficiency for something that he could potentially create, and he created that instance to serve a purpose in his current company.
Does John owe it his company, himself, or his previous employer? John is legally responsible to create software for Weyland-Yutani. He is also responsible to himself to operate within what he can create. Finally, John may also responsible for maintaining loyalty against for his previous company. This greyness created is ultimately conflicted with several moral dilemmas. One dilemma involved is that Weyland-Yutani’s ownership is justified because of the contract signed. Another dilemma involved situates John as a third-party and John was simply operating within his own capacity as an engineer. How much freedom does John have? Finally, it can be seen that Cyberdyne is the rightful owner of the software, although it has been modified and there was no contract.
Kyle, on the other hand, owes it to his previous employer to inform John of his action. Kyle, however, may be at fault as well. He did inform John that his action may be unethical, but was Kyle really acting within what was considered “right”. Couldn’t Kyle have gone to extremities to stop John? Consider the NASA Challenger space launch, engineers did not operate like whistleblowers, and instead passively let the space launch take place until disaster occurred. While Kyle did do what most people would do, Kyle could have used greater power to prevent the action. Kyle was most likely operating within his virtue ethics to remain loyal as a friend and to Cyberdynes, but failed to stop John even though John was going against Kyle’s ethical code.
Most likely from these outcomes, Cyberdyne, Weyland-Yutani, John, and Kyle will be fighting for legal rights in a court case. However, because Weyland-Yutani did create a contract with John, ownership will be granted with Weyland-Yutani. Is this morally right for Cyberdyne? I would say not, however this is most likely the case. Also, if John did operate to achieve social mobility in his current company, the process will be faster. But John may also be capable of preventing Weyland’s ownership, if John were to remain loyal to Cyberdyne during court proceedings. My recommended course of action is for John to claim ownership of the software, instead of any of the companies. Cyberdyne failed to use a contract, and John used his intellectual capacity to create something useful. I would define the software as his, and John should fight for his software. This may be a middle-point where less harm may be created between Cyberdyne and Weyland-Yutani. With ownership of the software, John may choose to what extent his property may be used.
Since John did not sign any agreement with Cyberdyne stating that his code while working there is their property I don't see any problem with him using the code where he wants to. However, since Weyland-Yutani's contract with John does state whatever he does while working there is their property. This creates an interesting dilemma. Perhaps he should have brought it up with Weyland-Yutani before he did anything to make sure he would be able to work something out without compromising his code of ethics.
ReplyDeleteWould this be considered a trade secret since it states that the system is essentially the "lifeblood" of the company?
ReplyDeleteFrom http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/trade_secrets_employee_loyalty.html
Identifying Trade Secrets
There are three basic requirements for any information to be considered a trade secret and thus be legally protected:
The information must be secret or shared in a context of confidentiality;
The information must have commercial value by virtue of being secret;
The owner of the information should have made reasonable efforts under the relevant circumstances to keep the information secret.
A trade secret may be any type of information such as formulae, devices, patterns, financial information, business plans, client lists, unannounced products and so on that an enterprise considers to be valuable and offers it an advantage over its competitors.