- Silicon Valley was successful because everyone shared (someone found a solution to a problem and then they’d share it with everyone). So, by implication not sharing “hurts”. How ethical is it to not share? How many people are hurting right now because of “corporate secrets”? Then again, not sharing promotes competition and innovation. So, “to share or not to share” becomes the question. Personally, if it were a perfect world, I’d go with the “always share” mentality.
- Visicalc just wanted to make the world a better place. They didn’t patent their idea yet because of how they defined success (making the world a better place) they were still successful. What’s the definition of success? Money? Making things better? For me it’s a combination of both.
- “They” had to make something “useful” to reach more than just hobbyists, so they came up with a spreadsheet for business people to calculate costs/profits. To be “successful” you generally have to make something that’s useful to many people, but how far are you willing to go to make something useful? Is stealing or “borrowing” the ideas of others acceptable? Sometimes, yes.
Thursday 24 September 2015
- Microsoft purchased an OS for 50k so they could use it wherever they wanted. Was this an “ethical” thing Microsoft did? Is it ethical to make the best of situations you’re put in or you come across? I say yes, though you’re a better person for not ruthlessly taking advantage of people in such situations.
- Concerning all the “PC Clones” – these were made in part from reverse engineering. Is it ethical to reverse engineer things and then sell the reverse-engineered product? I say yes- generally speaking if there’s enough motivation in a given market to reverse engineer a product there’s a need for competition in that market, so even though the monopolizing company may suffer losses, the competition will be for the greater good.
- Bill wanted to win – the idea at Microsoft was to “put people under.” Is “winning” worth putting people under? I think there are two sides to this figurative “coin”- on the one side you have monopolizing companies putting people under (i.e. squashing the competition). In this case it’s not a good thing/shouldn’t be done. On the other hand, sometimes “bad” people are in power/opposing the greater good. In such cases, these people may need to be “put under” for the greater good.
Tuesday 29 September 2015
- Steve Jobs had a vision and didn’t have the patience for people that didn’t share that vision. When is it acceptable to “lose patience” with people in your company that aren’t on the same page as you? Is it better to have everyone on the “same page”? Does this squash creativity? I think that having everyone in the same general “vein” is a good thing; however, having “outside-the-box thinkers” is also a good thing. Wise people will try to see things from the view of the “outside-the-box thinkers” before they lose patience with them.
- Xerox “higher-ups” didn’t see the greatness in products that their employees had created and as a result things didn’t go as well for Xerox as they could have. Would it have been ethical for Xerox employees to go behind the backs of the stubborn higher-ups to get some movement on the new products (if this were possible)? Was it ethical for some higher-up at Xerox to make the decision to show their new products to Apple? (Remember, as a result of this decision many people at Xerox indirectly suffered because they didn’t participate in the profits that Apple experienced.) I think in this situation the Xerox higher-ups didn’t see the full implications of revealing the new products, so the decision was ethical, but if the higher-ups had known that by revealing these products the company would indirectly suffer, the decision wouldn’t have been an ethical one.
- Steve Jobs didn’t care about being right, just about being successful. In many cases this attitude could lead to unethical actions being taken in order to achieve “success”. What unethical actions are justified to become successful? Are any?
No comments:
Post a Comment