The paper provides an overview of an ethical dilemma regarding the Accolade and Sega case. The issue revolves around the Sega game and game console company based in San Jose, and Accolades, a producer of video games. An ethical dilemma, also known as an ethical paradox, entails a problem associated with the making of an efficient decision. It entails the need to make a decision associated with two possible moral imperatives. Neither of the alternatives presents a possible best solution (Trevino & Nelson, 2016). The situation is either ambiguously acceptable or preferable. It entails the generation of a complicated situation from the issue or situational conflict. Obeying the results generated in either case calls for the transgression of the other.
The ethical dilemma arises from the decisions generated as the conclusions for the case. The dilemma arises when determining whether the technology developed by the Sega game and console company provided that it was solely owned by the firm, or whether it was meant for the public good as proposed by the Accolade company (Velasquez, 2014). Through the decision that it is private property, the Accolade company would be denied the right to make games that fit into the Sega game consoles. However, following the decision that it is a public good, the Sega game and console company would be denied the ownership of its invention.
Alternatively, the companies could decide to collaborate on the gaming venture to ensure that both companies benefit from the gaming business. The alternative would be essential in preventing confrontations between the two companies. It would, however, be against the desire of the Sega gaming and console company. The other option entails the licensure of the accolade company by Sega. While the Sega company would maintain the ownership of the gaming consoles, the Accolade company would be able to use them, and at the same time benefiting Sega. Among the impractical alternatives that would be eliminated include the collaboration to ensure that both companies benefit from the ventures. The remaining possible alternative includes the licensure of the Accolade company by the Sega company, the decision that the technology is a public good, or the decisions stopping the Accolade company from the use of the technology.
The decision to provide licensure for the Accolade company involves an ethical principle and value that allow the Sega company to earn from its invention. With regards to the determination of the invention as a private property of the Sega company, the ethical and value issues involved include that the rest of the companies could be barred from using the invention as it is viewed as the property of Sega company. Concerning the issue of declaring the technology a public good, the ethical issue involved includes that the Sega company would lose ownership of its invention.
The option of declaring the technological invention a public good would entail the sacrifice of ethical principles. The option would mean that the Accolade company is justified for infringing on the privacy of the Sega gaming company and getting confidential information about its products. The assumption would be that the Sega company does not incur any losses. The generalization, following the move to allow other gaming companies to use the technological invention, would be that the Sega company does not incur losses from the loss of ownership of its invention.
The move to consider the invention of a public good as per the argument provided by the Accolade company is considered an opinion as provided by the Accolade company. It is unjustifiable since it is driven by the desire projected by the Accolade company to use the invention and promote the sales of its games. Considering the technological move as a public property would be based on the belief that the Sega company does not run on losses following the declaration of the belief as a public good. The declaration of the invention by the court of appeal as public property, and allowing the Accolade company to use it presents an unsupported conclusion, as most of the lawmakers view the judgment as wrong. The solid fact, in the case, is that the technological invention is a property of the Sega game and console company. The company should have exclusive rights to manage it and posses its copyright. The rationalization for the fact is that the Sega company developed the technological software, and standardization bodies had not standardized it.
With regard to the credibility of the sources, in the presentation of its argument, the Accolade company manipulated facts to bring about an argument that supports its premise. The sources provided by the argument of the Accolade company, therefore, lacks credibility. The company presents an organization pursuing its self-interest, consequently manipulating facts. The argument that it presents, while could be justifiable for some items and commodities, is not significantly justifiable for the gaming consoles. The argument presented by the Sega gaming and consoles company is, however, justifiable. The Sega company presents evidence of the manufactory and ownership of the technology.
The various alternatives presented as the possible solutions to the problem have both benefits and burdens to the stakeholders. Regarding the invention as public property, the benefits that it presents is that Accolade and any other potential game company could use the program. The presented burden, however, is as the Sega company would lose its prospects. In the case that the invention is considered the property of the Sega company, the Sega game and console company gains the benefit of keeping the rights of the invention. However, Accolade would have the burden as it would not use it. In the case that Sega seeks to provide licensure for Accolade, both companies benefit as while Accolade gets the ability to use the software, Sega also gets the advantage of acquiring profits from the invention.
From a personal opinion, it is false to claim that the invention created by the Sega gaming and console company is public property. The Sega company used the available technology to facilitate the creation of an invention, which in this case, is private property. The most likely consequence of the conclusion is that the Sega game and console company would further appeal on the issue. As a result, the Accolade company would lose the right to use Sega game consoles.
On the contrary, the alternative of declaring the invention as a property of the Sega company would be the right decision. Since the company involved its resources and expertise in the invention, it should have ownership of the invention. Declaring the invention as a public property would be an unfair and unethical move towards the Sega company that invented the technology. The move of the saga company to provide licensure to the Accolade company would be essential in ensuring that both companies benefit from the venture.
The possible values in the case entail Sega as the inventing company to have ownership of the invention. This value, in my view, is the most prominent view. It allows ownership of the invention by the inventors. The second choice would be the provision of licensure by the Sega company to Accolade. The provision of licensure would be essential as it would bring about an end to the dispute between the two companies. The last alternative would be the determination of the invention as a public good. While the outcome would be favorable for Accolade, it would be unethical as it would lead to the loss of ownership by the inventors. The determination of the technology as an invention of the Sega company would be advantageous to the firm. The declaration would lead to the achievement of loyalties being given the Sega.
The worst-case scenario would be upholding the decision of the court of appeal that determines the invention as a public property. Upholding the role would mean that despite the efforts of Sega company in the invention, it does not benefit from its creation. Also, more gaming companies utilize it or replicate it, leading to a further loss of revenues. The change facilitates the avoidance of the ethically questioned conduct. The method could be changed to ensure that rather than seeking to keep the invention solely for the Sega company, the company could provide licensure to the accolade company. The result would be that both companies would benefit; consequently, preventing the dispute. The ethical framework approach that would be essential in dealing with the issue is the common right approach. In solving the issue, the goal would be to ensure that the ultimate decision provides a position that both companies benefit. The move would be essential in the prevention of possible future conflicts. It would facilitate satisfaction for both companies by ensuring the achievement of common ground.
The implementation of the decision would entail a move in certifying the implementation of the best practice. Following the deliberation on the issue, the best alternative would be the persuasion of the Sega company responsible for the creation of the invention and other gaming platforms to provide licensure for the Accolade company. The implementation would be through the expression of the need for licensure for both companies. While it could not be the best choice for both companies, it provides a middle ground that would ensure that both companies benefit from the venture. The companies would be informed of it as the best alternative in the move to prevent legal battles and consequences.
The monitoring plan would follow to determine the effects that the created decision would have on the issue. The monitoring plan would engage the periodic follow-ups to determine how well the implemented plan of action works. Among the determining factors that would be engaged at this point include the determination of the effectiveness of the licensure process. Also, the monitoring process would seek to determine the levels of conflicts to identify the need for change and modification.
In the case that the identified solution fails to be effective, there would be the need to revise the plan and adopt a different course of action. The revision of the plan would entail the revision of the process to determine an alternative course of action to settle the conflict. The legal decision previously reached would be evaluated to determine the better option. The solution would then be adopted to seek to reach a conclusive settlement. In the case of failure of the alternative course of action, the ultimate move would be to reevaluate the situation and come up with a new set of alternatives from which to choose.
The ethical issue rising in the identified case entails the case of ownership and the right of usage of the gaming platforms created by Sega gaming and console company. The alternatives provided for the settlement of the issue involve legal issues reached by two separate courts. One court presented that the invention in question was a private property of the Sega company, consequently preventing the Accolade company from using it. The second ruling, however, presented that the invention by the Sega company was public property (Velasquez, 2014). Any company was free to use it. In the determination of the best solution to the issue, the solution that this analysis presents are that the best way of settling the issue. Therefore, it is recommendable for the Sega company to provide licensure for Accolade company to allow for the benefit of both companies.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons.
Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Business Ethics Concepts & Cases.