This means that the owners of the product

This
article describes about four distinct groups of people who are associated with
information technology and describe the positions on Intellectual Property from
ethical, legal and ideas. The article is divided into three categories. In the
first category, we describe about the four subgroups and provide different
ideas on software ownership. In the second category, we describe the laws
related with software. In the final category, we describe the ethical positions
by each group.  The authors stated that
the, “Information systems (IS) profession has a distinct

Culture”,
also states that this culture has a unique subculture called ‘Hacking
Subculture’. It defines distinct views on improving software and the ethics
related to IP. The authors label Proprietary Proponents (PPs) as first subgroup
who do not identify hacking. The other subgroups are: Free Software Ideologues
(FSIs), Software Anarchists (SAs) and Open Source Advocates (OSAs),

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Proprietary
Proponents suggest software can be protected like any other physical product.
It means that the owners of the product need to compete in marketplace by
maintaining their intellectual developments. Gallini and Scotchmer, 2002; ICO,
2005) stated that there are two basic steps to be followed to protect the software,
firstly by following the current IP laws which provides profits to the owner.
Secondly, people must encourage and believe inventiveness and creativity of the
system. Open Source Advocates are categorized as programmers where they can
read and edit the source code and they do not promote the ideology of
respecting the IP rights. Whereas, Free Software Ideologues say that no one
should use the proprietary code to develop a computer software. The author believe
that software anarchists belongs to hacking community, whose main objective is
to steal, manipulate and deceive to achieve their own interest. This article
concludes by recognizing the four subgroups PP’s, OSA’s, FSI’s and SA’s have
distinct opinions on software as IP. In closing, the authors suggest when it
comes to ethical positioning each subgroup has its own perspective and own
tactics to handle its position. The United states supports the position of PP’s
but eventually there is a growth for the position of OSA’s in the current
business world.

Strength and Validity of Claims

            De George (2003) provide substantial support for the
foundational claims presented in the article. The authors claim that there are
three aspects that have impact on ethical beliefs about software. They report
that 1) Ideas start from existing knowledge rather than that of creator 2) It
is shareable 3) Both in creation and application IP is social. The article says
that the developer of the software has complete right of ownership by spending
its development according to John Locke’s theory (Johnson, 1994). This research
found that any person would contribute to the development of software to satisfy
his own needs as well as others. For example, Red Hat a software company which
sells a licensed version of Linux, is profitable from support and sales of Linux
even though Linux is open source (Faldetta, 2002). The article asserts that Free
Software Ideologues tell that the substantial good is served by having a system
that authorizes anyone to modify software, similar to OSA’s. Richard M.
Stallman, who founded the Free Software Movement in 1984, wanted to promote the
right to ”use, study, copy, modify and redistribute computer programs”.
Interestingly, internet browser based on mosaic was developed by Netscape, who
made their source code as public. (Winter et al., 2004) Finally, the authors finding
from this article about SA’s, they are characterized as subjecting as Machiavellian
way to ethical decision-making computer software on how they ignored other rights
and act only in their self-interest.