Owns Ideas: Case Study the

¶ … Owns Ideas: Case Study The ownership of ideas is a complicated, prickly academic and legal issue and one that has being debated for some time now. It has gained prominence with the emergence of Information technology and related tools but the concept itself has been around for centuries. No amount of debate has yet been able to reach a definitive conclusion in connection with the question as to who owns ideas.

It is interesting to note that despite claims by employees and employers regarding ownership of knowledge, innovation or ideas, there has been no specific law granting anyone the exclusive rights to ideas while there are many that deal with rights of tangible objects and 'creative' productions. For this reason, every case in this connection needs to be handled as an individual occurrence.

While some argue that 'ownership of ideas' must be exclusive to 'authors' or the person in whose mind it first originated including John Locke's Second Treatise (1690) and Edward Young's Conjectures on Original Composition (1759). There are others who firmly maintain that 'ownership of ideas' must rest with all those who contributed to its origin such as the organization and its team who helped in the process.

There are yet others who argue the issue on philosophical grounds and offer a solution according to their own understanding of philosophical theories and religious inclination. It must be made absolutely clear here that if I were in Susan Finn's position and had to choose a philosophical approach to the issue, I would choose the Common good approach. But before I proceed in this direction, let me first explore some of the options that Susan has in this case. Since she is the one who hired Dr.

Janice, Susan is now faced with an ethical dilemma. Did she do the right thing by hiring Dr. Janice and then using her research for the benefit of her firm and its project? The answer is simple: hiring someone from the rival firm is no ethical or criminal offence and thus the issue has no legal significance. If the person being hired was under some legal contract with the previous firm regarding the length of employment, then it is a matter that needs to be settled between Dr.

Janice and her previous employer. But as the case shows clearly there appears to be no such contract existing and thus hiring of Dr. Janice poses no legal problems. If the former firm wanted to retain the services of Dr. Janice, they could apply their retention strategies and lure her back or asked her not to leave in the first place. It is clear that Dr.

Janice left her previous employer willingly and was more than ready to take on as chief of scientific invention team in a new organization that offered more benefits. The fact that during her conversation with Susan before she joined the team, she mentioned the use of ion-bonding and this was clearly her idea. If Susan had used this idea without Dr.

Janice not joining the team, she might have crossed some business ethical lines but seen from common good approach, she would have done nothing wrong as we shall explain later in the paper. Since Susan wasn't put in this situation, she doesn't have to worry on this account. The alternatives available to her include the following: She must prepare to fight a legal battle if Dr. Janice's former employer takes the issue to the court. The legal challenges include proving the lawfulness of hiring practices, proving that Dr.

Janice has an equal right to ideas generated by her team at San Bruno Instruments and establishing the legality of using those ideas for research purposes at Millbrae Tech. Rechecking their own retention policy so the technical and other staff doesn't leave to work at San Bruno. But in case, some employees leave to work at San Bruno as the CEO of San Bruno wants, then Susan has no legal obligation to prove that legality of her hiring practices.

Now we shall see who owns the ideas when studied from Common good philosophical view. Then we shall see how Dr. Janice and Millbrae Tech can protect themselves from problems on purely legal grounds. Who owns ideas' and Common Good: When we talk about ownership of what a man works on, the one theory that instantly comes to mind is Locke's theory of ownership where he wrote that "every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any right to but himself.

The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." But this argument is flawed since it cannot be applied to all situations. If I produce something with my labor But with the help of others, why should I have the exclusive rights to it? The fact that a farmer ploughs the land that belongs to someone else, does that means that the farmer has all the rights to the harvest? No.

That is not entirely correct! Locke's argument doesn't hold true in many situations and thus it is better to use it exclusive to some tangible objects like property. Ideas on the other hand are public goods since once transmitted; they cease to be someone's exclusive property. We must see it this way. Rights of ownership should be granted when using something by more than a few people might diminish its value or when it cannot be enjoyed without exclusive ownership.

For example, my house ceases to my private place if everyone could enter or occupy it. My land ceases to produce as much as it could if everyone was allowed to plough it. But that is not the case with an idea. An idea doesn't diminish in its value if it is used by those in whose mind it originated and others who came to learn about it.

Thomas Jefferson explained this distinctive nature of an idea in these words: The] peculiar character [of an idea] is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. In conclusion, he made it explicitly clear that "inventions..

cannot, in nature, be a subject of property,'" even though society might try to grant exclusive rights inventors "as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility...."But such a step "may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.'" For the good of the society, it is therefore important that ideas be allowed to flow freely after they have been transmitted.

If they stay in a person's mind are not yet communicated to others, they are obviously being owned by one person. But ideas are of value unless they are communicated or transmitted in some manner. And as soon as they are released from the mind, they cease to become anyone's exclusive property.

Secondly, if we allow one person the exclusive rights to ideas, his death or sudden inability to transmit ideas might rob the entire society of something that could have been of value had someone else known about it and allowed to use it. Keeping the common good philosophy in mind, Maritain explained that corporations have understood that, in order simply to exist, and to keep producing, they must become more and more socially minded and concerned with the general welfare.

Thus, not by reason of any Christian love, but rather of intelligent self-interest, and of the ontological generosity, so to speak, of the stream of life, the idea of the advantage of the human being -- all those who cooperate on the job, and the general public as well -- is gradually taking the upper hand. I do not assume that corporations have reached a stage where they would prefer the common good to their own particular good.

But they are reaching a stage where for the sake of their own particular good they realize that the superior rights of the common good must be taken into account." (p. 107) French Mathematician Condorcet (1776) asserted that ideas "...are not the creation of a single mind. Nor are they a gift from God to be regulated by royal authority. Ideas inhere in nature and are equally and simultaneously accessible to all.

Ideas are intrinsically social: they are not produced by individuals alone; they are the fruit of a collective process of experience." (Hesse, 2002) This clearly shows that ideas are fruits of collective labor. This is a process in which society has contributed in one way or another thus any one firm or person cannot expect to be granted exclusive rights to ideas. Ideas are thus meant for collective good of the society.

When a new idea is learned, it free use must follow since that is the only way society can benefit from the idea in the best possible manner. In his introductory essay for The Common Good and U.S. Capitalism, Oliver E. Williams writes: "To be sure, individual autonomy is not unimportant but this notion only has meaning in the context of a community that puts limits on any personal projects for the sake of common life." (p.

3) In this case therefore, San Bruno Instruments should not expect exclusive ownership of rights since Dr. Janice and others worked hard to produce those ideas. It can be used by San Bruno Instruments and Millbrae Tech in any manner they wish and the growth of the idea must not be impeded. This is because.