For my final ethical project I will be discussing how some
companies does not value the intellectual properties of employees in the case
against Aleynikov. In general terms, intellectual property is any product of
the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. The ownership of intellectual property
inherently creates a limited monopoly in the protected property. The products
of the human intellect that comprise the subject matter of intellectual
property are typically characterized as non-rivalrous public goods.
The intellectual property in case is the piece of software
that Aleynikov had worked on while he was at Goldman Sachs. Aleynikov was
arrested two days after Goldman Sachs contacted the FBI with evidence that he
had downloaded proprietary code. Aleynikov acknowledged taking the code but
told FBI agents he only intended to collect “open source” software files on
which he had worked, and that his collection of proprietary files on his last
day of work had been inadvertent. He never gave the proprietary files to anyone
else and that the portion of proprietary code he took inadvertently was
miniscule just 32 of about 1,224 megabytes of code and barely constituted the
company’s entire platform.
The philosopher Robert Nozick would argue that since
Aleynikov worked on the software while he working there and that he wrote
partial on the code that he is entitled to it. The content in question is part
of the trading software that Aleynikov wrote the code for. Which he took before
leaving the company to go work for a competitor which would have paid him three
times the amount of money. Others would refute Nozick point of view they would
argue that as part of the agreement every employee signs when they work for
those types of companies that anything that they create in the company is not
theirs but for the company. The professor even gave us an example where if
while working at Bunker Hill they create a piece of software that not only the
college would take their work but they might not get the recognition for the accomplishment.
In my opinion Aleynikov should be allowed to get the code that he had worked on
while at Goldman Sachs. If they prosecute him then they should prosecute every
single employee that has worked for a major company and left to go work for
their competitor.
Henry David Thoreau argues that it is much more important
for people to develop a respect for and understanding of what is right than to
uncritically adhere to laws which may be unjust. The only thing that people are
really obligated to do is what they think is right, not what the law says is
right. He is basically assuming that people understand ethics, and can
distinguish it from cultural norms and values. But in a way what he his saying
he that it wrong that he was to follow a law that does not adhere to him
because of ethics but it is morally wrong because he was the one that created
it so he should be entitled to it because he did not break any law according
the National Stolen Act.
As much as things
change, some things will remain the same: The government will continue to
prosecute the theft of intellectual property, defendants will continue to raise
creative challenges to the criminal laws, and the courts will continue to
wrestle with these issues, all as technology continues to evolve.The laws used in this case were adopted before the days of
computers, but prosecutors still try to apply them to this case. Like many
other cases regarding computers/cyber, they lack an understanding on how to
deal with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment