Managing Intellectual Property - Case Study Example

Case one: Monsanta vs Farmer Bowman. Whether or not Monsanto has an ethical right to the product and determinants of that product as long as it continues to exist; regardless of the fact that it is a self replicating product. This represents an ethical conflict due to the fact that Monsanto has a legal right and expectation to profits from a particular seed and hybrid product that they had spent years developing. As a direct function of this, someone merely attempting to benefit from the sale of a product, passed off as one’s own, which was ultimately intellectually and illegally required to be remitted to Monsanto, represents an ethical issue. Further complicating this is the fact that the claim to ownership that Monsanto places upon the sea is in and of itself a curious case. For instance, if an individual work to buy an advanced camera from a firm such as Nikon or Canon, disassemble that camera, inspect all of its working parts, and then proceed to create an exact duplicate of that camera, sell it, and profit from this sale, it would be clear and apparent that a legal and ethical violation had taken place (Zhao, 2013). However, the issue of seed is a more nuanced and perhaps more conflict ridden topic. This is of course due to the fact that one cannot merely go out into nature, drop a Nikon or Canon camera into the ground, water it, and with little to no labour harvest replicas of it in the future. Although the ethical dilemma within the case of Monsanto is not directly tied to the level of labour per se, it is most certainly concentric upon the fact that an innately sell replicating product was initially provided to the farmer with the expectation that he would not allow this process to benefit him in a reasonable manner. Perhaps this particular issue is what clouds the ethical understanding more than anything else. The mere thought that anyone can or should have direct and stole property rights to something as ubiquitous as a seed is perhaps the most absurd facet of the entire case. From a utilitarian point of view, if one analyzes the ethical dilemma that is innate within the case of Monsanto, the first, and perhaps the most salient, question that comes to mind is with regard to cruise utility can or should be maximized. Should it be the utility of the farmer or should it be the utility of a multi-billion dollar a year agriculture and bio research conglomerate (Oppenheimer, 2013)? The answer to this can ultimately be found with regard to why a multibillion-dollar industry such as Monsanto which used to cross a small-time farmer such as Mr. Bowman. Power and Monopoly are ultimately the means through which such firms operate within the current environment. Without Monopoly, and the power that it brings, firms such as Monsanto would lose untold millions of dollars in profits. This profit margin is ultimately the greatest good that such entities so reverently respect. Is one that likely does not even enter into the consciousness of the decision-makers, legal department, and/or any other shareholders of Monsanto. The corporate drive for success, profitability, and dominance overshadows any reflection on such a concept as sharing. From a relativist point of view, the understanding that Monsanto has eternal rights to a self replicating process seem as if it is something that should not be considered within the court of law but should be considered within a common sense framework of understanding. By contrast, the utility of the farmer, at least in growing the seed itself, should not be infringed upon by any firm that seeks to dominate the buying habits of a consumer. However, in all fairness, it is ethically and morally incumbent upon the farmer, as long as Monsanto retains intellectual rights upon the seed in question, to remit or forgo any profits that he would have from reselling the produce in question. In such a way, the corrective action would be for the farmer to cease and desist from the selling of seed and/or produce that was ultimately the intellectual copyright of another individual. However, it must be stated that this represents only a legal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. From an ethical standpoint, it is the strong belief of this author that month and toes claim to a self replicating process is in and of itself absurd and should not be honoured within the court of law. Response: With regards to a response to the above case, the first determine that must be measured is with regards to the ethical strength of the argument that Monsanto has for continuing to hold the legal rights to a patent for something such as a seed products. Whereas the student in question does not agree with the logic and/or rationale for the legality of any firm having intellectual property rights to something such as a seed, which can, by very definition, self replicate and render such a patent seemingly redundant and useless, if in fact the court system chooses to uphold this legal precedent, then no individual has the right to infringe upon it by selling the product that another individual has worked to create. As is briefly stated above, the utilitarian standpoint is not particularly effective with regards to helping to understand the way in which the farmer should respond or with regards the way in which Monsanto is constrained to respond. This is of course contingent upon the fact of cruise utility should be maximized. Naturally, one could make the argument that society as a whole has its interest one way or the other. Yet, a powerful counterargument would necessarily be with respect to whether or not society’s interest and/or utility is maximized either by the individual farmer being able to lower prices of a given commodity or whether societies utility/interests can be maximized by upholding the rule of patent law that allows for a given Corporation, ultimately a group of individuals, to benefit from the fruit of their labors. Within this way, the multi-dimensional approach to this given case becomes even more convoluted. However, approaching this from a distinctly content ethical standpoint, namely with regards to the universality of the case in point, one would most certainly be troubled by a situation in which a given business entity could constrain the way in which a consumer would be able to enjoy, profit, and appreciate the fruits of their own labours. Whereas it is true that content ethics promote the idea that universality is the most appreciable means of understanding the way in which actions should take place within the world, one should consider the case of Monsanto with respect to content ethics. Within such an interpretation, the individual quickly comes to the realization that if a universal ethical standard was applied to the case of Monsanto, then it would not be much of an extension for a firm such as Nikon or Canon to insist upon the fact that any and all the productions of the photographic material that their lenses and camera apparatus are responsible for capturing must therefore remain perennially the express property of the firm which was initially responsible for creating the device in question. Although this seems absurd, when one compares it to the court ruling with regards to Monsanto, the absurdities seems dissipate. In effect, what Monsanto has evidenced with regards to a universal paradigm is that the firm itself is fully in possession of that which it has sold and retains rights to it in definitely. Naturally, the universality of such a paradigm is difficult to accept and creates a situation by which the consumer/user of a given product or service seems to find a diminishing level of return based upon that which they thought could benefit them in the first place. From a theological standpoint, the case of Monsanto could be questioned with regards to what the ultimate end of the situation represents. The ultimate end with regards to the case is contingent upon who is able to derive profit from the sale of a seed product that was originally tailor-made by a given firm; in this case, Monsanto. Thus, a teleological standpoint does not allow for a great deal of differentiation between whether or not farmer should receive the prophet whether or not a multibillion-dollar year agriculture conglomerate should receive the benefit. Finally, from a deontological perspective, it is clear and abundantly obvious that the case of Monsanto must be understood with regards to the fact that Monsanto should have the rule of law upheld and should have full profitability rights to that which they have patented and protected under the rule of law. By very nature, the deontological approach favours the rule of law and the means through which constraint and reason is given to a particular action and/or ethical approach. As a final means of response, it is the belief of this student that the most rational and reasonable approach is necessarily with respect to the universal imperative reference the by Kant. References Oppenheimer, L. (2013). Bowman v Monsanto hearing reassures patent owners. Managing Intellectual Property, (228), 110. Zhao, M. (2013). How Bowman v Monsanto could affect patent law.  Managing Intellectual Property, (228), 96. Read More