Case study 2
Accolade versus Sega
1. On the basis of Locke’s theory, Sega has the right to own and copyright its new genesis console and intellectual property that goes along with the console. Since Sega created the device and software, then it should be treated as private property simply because it is a product of their labor. Accolade deliberately copied or decoded their private property without Sega’s consent, which violated Sega’s “natural” property rights. Accolade would definitely be wrong in every aspect of this story. Accolade’s lawyer’s argument that Sega’s security codes were an interface standard is also wrong in a lockean based economy. This is because interface standards are publicly owned by everybody and can be duplicated without permission. Nothing is publicly owned in a Locke based perspective. The utilitarian view would also favor Sega’s software code as being private property, but for different reasons. This view suggests if Sega didn’t have property rights to its genesis and affiliated profitability, then Sega would lose incentive to create new ideas beneficial to the marketplace. This theory of utility also suggests Accolade and Sega should both have taken a different approach to how they did business, or lack of business, with each other. Sega should have granted accessibility to its gaming console for a small fee. This would have made Sega and Accolade more profitable to society because Accolade’s games would benefit Sega’s industry. The Marxist theory would take Accolade’s side to this story. This theory would suggest the software that Accolade decoded belongs to the general public for their benefit to make a profit. Sega owns only the game console and not the software that is used to run it. Accolade’s lawyer’s argument that the software is an interface standard would stand lawful. I personally agree with the utility theory most because if there wasn’t any incentive for new ideas and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document