http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308164-56.html
The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day.

Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made.


http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html
A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.



My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation?

The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work?

How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?

From a Critical Ethic perspective,

Who do patents and copyrights protect? What kind of ideologies underly such a policy?

I would argue that it is the capitalist ideologies, individualist ideologies that 'create' values for 'innovations'

It also underly the human supremacist ideology that we as human beings can somehow create something out of nothing. I've asked this question before, I'll ask again - Why is it that when a bird builds a nest, it's a natural habitat? But when a man builds a housing structure, it's a man-made architecture? Isn't it just as natural? Didn't we also build our houses using existing materials (in the materialism sense).

Weiye Loh wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308164-56.html
> The news that a judge has slapped an injunction that could bar Microsoft from selling its flagship Word software is a big deal. But don't expect to see Redmond allow one of its key money makers to be pulled from the market--even for a day.
>
> Not just on the article itself, pay attention also to the comments and arguments made.
>
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news167929968.html
> A new study challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that they may hinder technological progress, economic activity and societal wealth. These results could have important policy implications, because many countries count on patent systems to spur new technology and promote economic growth.
>
>
>
> My ethical question is does intellectual property and copyright stifle or promote innovation?
>
> The ethical problem is how do we justify something as original if everything is being built upon previous work?
>
> How then does Einstein's famous quote that "if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" applies?

Contrast this case in Singapore to other countries like the United States or Malaysia that limits the liability of the consumers of such cases to a specific amount - which policy is better? On another note, I have always been intrigued by the fact that organizations, while being infinitely more powerful, are regarded as individuals with individual rights legally. What does this have to say about the identity of organizations?

The issue of responsibility was heavily debated and the parties identified are 1. the credit card owners, 2. the banks, 3. the retailers. 4. government bodies e.g. MAS, CASE on their regulations and policies. Which party do you all think should shoulder the moral obligations of owning the technology of cashless payment? How then should this translate to the laws and enforcement?

The case came to light when a certain Mdm Tan Shock Ling's credit cards got stolen. Within an hour, the fraudsters used her credit cards to chock up bills amounting to $17k. She was only notified of the purchases when a bank called her to confirm if she has just purchased a rolex watch using one of her credit card. The banks requested her to pay back the bills because they will only cover payments made after she has reported the lost of her credit cards. There were a few articles regarding the issue, with Newpaper sending their reporters (Chinese women) out shopping with an Indian man's credit card. Their investigative journalism showed that retailers are generally lax in their verification of the purchaser's identity vis-a-vis the name and signature.

Same case on credit card fraud

More on credit card fraud

Credit Card fraud. CASE's reply.

The Thio Li-Ann debate

Former teacher sues Association of Bloggers president and founder, Jayne Goh

Two wrongs and two rights.

Not exactly the most recent case, but still worth revisiting the ethical concerns behind it. It is easy to find more than one ethical question and problem in this case and it involves more than one technology. The dichotomies of lies versus truths, nature versus man-made, wrongs versus rights, beautiful versus ugly,and so on... So who is right and who is wrong in this case? Whose and what rights are invoked and/or violated? Can a right be wrong? Can a wrong be right? Do two wrongs make one right? What parts do the technologies play in this case?

On a side note, given the internet's capability to dig up past issues and rehash them, is it ethical for us to open up old wounds in the name of academic freedom? Beyond research, with IRB and such, what about daily academic discourses and processes? What are the ethical concerns?