The Microsoft as a Service Provider - Essay Example

The Microsoft as a Service Provider a) The parties that are directly involved in this case are Microsoft and nine U.S states. The nine states have a court case against Microsoft for trying to stifle Linux, an open source operating system rival in a ploy to undermine competition. Therefore in this case, Microsoft is the respondent in the court case and the nine states being the plaintiffs hence these two different parties are directly involved. These different stakeholders involved may be related in that Microsoft is a service provider and the different states comprise of the consumers and regulators who also act as watch dogs to oversee the performance of other companies industry. In this case the nine states are responsible for regulating the operations of Microsoft, the reason why they have instituted a legal case against Microsoft for trying to undermine Linux, a scenario seen as likely to scuttle competition in the industry which is detrimental to economic growth. This also has negative effects with regards to promotion of competition in the industry. b) Basically, an ethical consideration specifically refers to something that is generally accepted as morally, socially and even economically good for various stakeholders that is the general population as a whole which is affected by the operations of a particular organisation. In this regard, we would be looking at how the operations say of another company can impact on the welfare of different stakeholders who are either directly or indirectly involved in its operations. In the given case study, it can be clearly seen that the nine U.S. states are up in arms with the software giant, Microsoft as they have a court case against it for allegedly trying to undermine an open source operating system rival Linux. In the ongoing anti trust court case, the nine states are advocating tougher action against Microsoft which is seen as having violated its ethical code of conduct for trying to work underground in a bid to stifle the operating system developed by another different, rival software company. Ethically, there should be no company that should violate the operations of other different organisations. Therefore, by trying to stifle Linux, Microsoft would not be acting in a professional and ethical manner as expected by different stakeholders as this would discourage competition within the industry. This is clearly shown in the case where the nine states argue that the judge should take as evidence the memo by the executive of Microsoft where he stated that they should withhold technical information from Intel in retaliation for the chip maker’s promotion and funding of Linux. On the other hand, Microsoft also raises an issue of ethical consideration when it argued that it regarded the memo as irrelevant since the company did not act on its suggestion. The company could not have acted on the suggestion as a way of upholding their ethics and for fear of putting the image of the company into disrepute which would have catastrophic effects on its operations in business. So basically, the two major stakeholders, Microsoft and the nine U.S. states involved in this case seem to be conscious about ethical considerations as the case is attempting to establish a common ground of understanding meant to promote competition in the market in a viable and ethical manner. c) The legal issues raised pertain to the anti-trust court case against Microsoft by nine U.S. states. In this case Microsoft is attempting to work underhand to stifle Linux, an open and legally recognised operating system which is provided by another service provider. The legal issue here is that Microsoft’s attempt to stifle Linux would violate the legal framework of the states involved since it would be legally acceptable to have other software developers to operate within the economy guided by the underlying principles of the law. Such kind of interference is tantamount to destruction and that kind of scenario does not promote competition which is not recommended in a democratic economy. For instance in my country there is the Anti corruption and monopolies act that is used to curtail such incidents where other giant companies seek to monopolize everything. Due recognition is also given to the significance of privacy where each legally registered company is entitled to the benefits of protection against outside interference that can have negative effects on its operations. In this case it would be a crime for Microsoft to attempt to stifle Linux as the act strives to promote growth with equity in a competitive environment. d) In the short to medium term, I would rather recommend the involved parties to have an immediate investigation into the matter and get supporting evidence that would be used for prosecuting purposes. Should there be any evidence showing that Microsoft truly attempted to stifle Linux, I would recommend the nine states involved to lobby for appropriate action against Microsoft so as to set a precedent that would discourage the would be offenders against any form of attempting to interfere with the operations of other companies as this would kill the spirit of competition. Basically, I would recommend the effecting of sanctions to Microsoft should there be any evidence pointing to the contrary that it would have attempted to interfere with Linux. In this case taking out Microsoft’s code would be the best way forward as this would limit its unbecoming behavior of trying to sabotage other genuine software providers who also have the legal rights to participate in the open market system. If the code is revealed, then the Microsoft giant would behave in a similar fashion like any other company dealing with software. At the same time I would recommend that Microsoft being a reputable company, it has to prove its innocence to risk being prosecuted for allegedly trying to undermine Linux. In the short term this would help to allay suspicions that it would be involved in other underhand dealings that are meant to scuttle the operations of other organisations for its own gain at the expense of the victims. e) In the long term, I would recommend the promulgation of laws that safeguard the interests of other smaller corporations to enjoy their rights for operating their businesses without interferences by other supposedly bigger companies. This would include the rights of the smaller organisations to be protected against any form of invasion. In simple terms, privacy rights ought to be prioritized and should be given due cogniscence by all parties that are either directly or indirectly involved. The legal framework would also include a draft policy that would give organisations providing a similar service equal freedom that would guide their operations such that no other company would be found manipulating the justice system to its own advantage. Basically, there should be a clear set of binding rules and regulations that provide the framework for operations by different players in the industry. Read More