The Ethics of Microsoft Taking on End User in China :: Piracy Technology Software Essays

The Ethics of Microsoft Taking on End User in China Background ( Microsoft vs Beijing Yadu Science and Technology Group.) The case of Microsoft Corporation ( China), Ltd. V. Beijing Yadu Science and Technology Group is considered a landmark court case in which the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court (BFIPC) handed down its decision on Microsoft’s complaint against Beijing Yadu Science and Technology Group. The company Yadu was found to be in possession of a dozens of pirated copies of Microsoft products installed in its computer computers. 1 The case was eventually dismissed in December 17, 1999 not because it did not have merit, but rather on the technicality that Microsoft misidentified the defendant in its allegation. 1 Even though the case was dismissed on technicality, it sparked much debate among the Chinese legal community about the ambiguity within the existing law in China with regard to this matter. More significantly, it created an even more hotly debated issue about the ethics of software infringement. Introduction Software piracy in the year 2002 was estimated to have cost U.S. software companies world wide an estimated 9.2 billion dollars as a result of revenue loss. Of all the hundreds of countries world wide, China is by far the biggest contributor to this revenue loss at an estimated figure of 1.85 billion dollars. 2 Thus not surprisingly, law suits over the issue of software infringement is so prevalent in China today. In December of 1999, Microsoft, the world’s largest and most dominant software company set a new legal precedence in China in the landmark case of Microsoft Corporation ( China), Ltd. V. Beijing Yadu Science and Technology Group. The law suit caused an uproar among numerous Chinese consumers because for the first time in China, â€Å"a major foreign software manufacturer went directly after an end user for copyright infringement in China† instead of just the people who manufactures and sells the counterfeit software. 3 At first glance, it is easy for many Americans in the United States to simply say this case is nothing more than a matter of right and wrong, black and white. The obvious argument would seem to be that if you use something without paying for it, then it constitute stealing. Without a doubt, stealing is universally regarded as wrong in every country and in every culture. However, in a case such as this, we are not dealing straight forward laws.