Why do hi-tech companies ask me to speak on issues involving old-fashioned ethical issues? Aren’t ethical discussions somewhat old school? Not at all. Just ask industry giant Apple. If it can happen to a company as sophisticated to Apple, it can to any company. In an article carried on Reuters (October 14, 2015) entitled: “Apple Loses Lawsuit to Univ. of Wisconsin, Faces Damages,” we learn that:
“Apple could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices.”
While the technical nuances of the patent that was stolen are complex, it improves the efficiency of our devices. The jury that found Apple guilty is now determining how much Apple must pay. The processors using this technology are incorporated in iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad.
Denials not surprising
As the storm clouds gathered over the Apple campus, they of course denied any patent infringement. They tried to use a number of legal maneuvers to present their case to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but in the end, U.S. District Judge William Conley, could make Apple liable for more than $800 million in damages. The bad news isn’t over. If it was found that Apple infringed on the patent willfully, the damages could be even more.
In addition:
“Last month, WARF [University of Wisconsin-Madison’s marketing arm] launched a second lawsuit against Apple, this time targeting the company’s newest chips, the A9 and A9X, used in the just-released iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as the iPad Pro.”
It would be one thing if this were, perhaps an HVAC development team that had inadvertently “borrowed” a vent design from another HVAC company, but an organization the size of Apple and its numerous affiliates has teams of patent attorneys and engineers who do nothing else all day than examine existing technologies. I do not pretend to know how the engineering of the iPhone works; it is a world unto itself. Product developers are paid huge sums of money to know how the technologies relate to one another.
It would seems that somewhere along the way those who examined patents, those who used the patents with the intention of circumventing them and those who approve the prototypes within the organization, would have raised the red flag. Though we on the outside will never be privy to the development process of the iPhone – and its corporate politics, I would not be shocked to learn that there were whistle-blowers and those whistle blowers were quelled.
Even a company the size of Apple will feel the pain of an $800 million lawsuit. The University of Wisconsin-Madison organization could come out of this rolling in cash.
Opportunity, choices and consequences
Are the principles of ethical training any different in the highly sophisticated world of the modern-day, digital telecommunications than they were in the days of Alexander Graham Bell? Not really. There was an opportunity to utilize technology that had been developed and patented by another organization. The technology was used in a for-profit application. Someone signed off on the use of the technology and someone took the chance to use it.
I teach that every choice has a consequence. Whether I am talking to a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers, car salesmen or a high-tech company the principles are the same. A bad choice invariably leads to a poor outcome. Is there a possibility that the technology being developed by the iPhone team was done independently of the patents that were in place? Yes, anything is possible. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that the mindset at Apple was that they were the brightest guys in the room; that they were the most sophisticated and knowledgeable and beyond reproach, just because they were Apple.
From personal experience and from working with many university groups, I would be very surprised to learn the team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was unaware their technology had been used. Things just don’t work that way anymore.
If there is any doubt that an ethical line may have been crossed, chances are the line was crossed with the first glimmer of uncertainty. Even Alexander Graham Bell would have understood.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!