![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Answers to HWcase1, Q3
Sep. 14th, 2022 02:48 pmQ3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:
- “The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
- “Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the consequentialist and deontological approaches.
- “Conclusions.”
- “Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.
- “Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.
The facts of the case
In the case of Apple v Google, Apple sued Google for their use of a tap to unlock feature that Apple argued was in violation of their patent on 'slide-to-unlock' technology. Apple made the argument that a "tap is a zero-length swipe" and therefore Google was infringing on their copyright. This just so happened to coincide with the upcoming release of Google's new phones, which the lawsuit delayed. The judge made the decision that what was being argued was significantly different from what the patent covered, so he threw the case out.
Analysis
I'll be covering the utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics perspectives on this case. The utilitarian outlook would govern the outcome which was the case being thrown out. The case being thrown out allowed for the proliferation of technology in the smartphone field which gives consumers a larger selection of choices for their smartphone needs. Therefore, the utilitarian perspective would agree with the judge in their decision. The perspective of deontological ethics would not be kind on Apple either. If you were to judge their intentions instead of the outcome, then I don't believe that their actions would be viewed as ethical either. From what can be gathered from the case, Apple made a loose connection in their patent to Google's new phones in an attempt to selfishly prevent them from releasing their new phones and make some money while doing so. The features being compared were quite separate from one another and it's hard to imagine that Apple genuinely believed that Google was stealing their technology. Therefore, like the utilitarian view, deontological ethics would disapprove as well. In the view of virtue ethics, I believe they would examine Apple's character as a company, what they strive to be, and if they act accordingly. A good company would be one that treats its users well, acts with integrity, and has concern for people and the environment. If you look at how they acted in this case I don't believe that they followed these tenants. The basis of the case was flawed, as was decided by the judge, and their motivations for it weren't ethical either. Finally, their decision to go after the lawsuit would have decreased their customers choice, not giving them the free will to decide for themselves. Therefore, virtue ethics would agree, Apple was not acting ethically.
Conclusions
My conclusion on this case is that Apple was acting selfishly and unethically in their pursuit of this lawsuit. Everything from their intentions, their intended outcome, and to their company's moral fiber should be deemed unethical. I believe that they wished to hamper Google to further increase their position in the smartphone enterprise while simultaneously decreasing the expansion of new technologies in the world.
Future Environment
My vision of a utopian future in which the level of technology has vastly increased is one of prolific intermingling of thought and ideas. If the spread of technology was more greatly encouraged and the success or failure of a product was based on not the base technology used but instead who implemented it better and how it was innovated then the world would be the better for it. The suppression of technological dissemination leads to a greatly slowed rate of innovation and modernization. This case would be even more serious in a world of technological spread because Apple would be much more heavily criticized for trying to prevent advancement.
Future Scenario
This case would play out only slightly differently in my perceived future, because the end result would be much the same. The case would be dismissed like in our universe but for a different reason. The idea that such a basic feature can be the object of a lawsuit would have the case thrown out before it started. The success or failure of such petty differences would be decided on who the consumers think implemented it better, not in a court of law. In the field of technology, I think the world would be better off not arguing and suing over such small ideas, our time should not be spent deliberating over who can unlock a phone in a certain way.
