The Case of Rona

The Case of Rona

The judgment: Rona is guilty of infringing intellectual property

The effective area of the law on intellectual property covers community B. The infringement was done on community B. Except in some cases (Rona pleads temporary insanity for example), Rona is proven guilty under the existing laws in community B.



Judging the case based on some definitions of ethics might be unjust

It might also be unethical. Ethics “involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior1” while law involves cause and effect, more commonly crime and punishment. The case of Rona is more of a case of law than a case of ethics. So if ethics is about right and wrong, and if the right thing to do about the case is to let the law handle it (and not ethics), it would be “unethical” to base the case on ethics rather than law. While ethics and law are both about right and wrong, it could be drawn upon their definitions that ethics is more into recommending and law is more into enforcing.


Ethics as character or custom

In the light of ethics, Rona could be acquitted with this argument since Rona’s customs are different to Jojo’s customs. But the laws of their communities are more binding than their ethics. So in the light of the law, Rona is guilty.


Ethics as study of morality of human actions

This definition of ethics considers the bounds of the restrictions of human actions depending on the circumstances and the generally accepted standards. Rona’s act is a negative illustration of this definition because her actions are not in the bounds of the restrictions of the generally accepted standards of community B.


Ethics as focusing on the care for the soul

Rona’s actions regarding Jojo’s intellectual property are similar to stealing. If stealing is regarded as an act that corrupts the soul, then Rona committed an unethical act.
Ethics as area of philosophy that deals with man’s pursuit of the “good life”

This definition concerns “adherence to ethics” in the attainment of the good life. Since both parties have different sets of ethics, this definition is not that useful for the case. In the point of view of community B, Rona’s acts are unethical, but in the point of view of community A, they are not. If there is a way to determine whether which set of ethics is more correct then we could arrive at a verdict using this definition.


Ethics as study and philosophy of human conduct

This definition emphasized determination of right and wrong which is more in the realm of Normative Ethics. The vice of insensitivity could be observed in the part of Rona when she was not sensitive of the ethics of community B. On another angle, community A exhibits the virtues of charity and generosity. This definition of ethics just provides many gray areas about the case and is not a very appropriate determinant of the verdict.


Ethics as dealing with the basic principles of right action

The example in the explanation of this definition included the relevance of location. This could be useful for the case if the ethics of a particular location applies to all persons in that area, equally for natives to that area or foreigners to it. Related to this is the concept of international law, which is traditionally built upon customs and treaties among different governments. The International Court of Justice of the United Nations for example, chooses which of the disputing camps’ laws will be applied.


Ethics as suggestion of notion of correct or incorrect practices relative to various concerns or fields of study

The case is in the realm of the applied ethics that pertains to intellectual property, more specifically computer ethics. Using a concrete set of ethics, like the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics by the Computer Ethics Institute, Rona could be held liable for breaking all but commandments 5 and 9. Breaking at least one of these commandments will make the actions of Rona unethical, what more eight of them? This definition of ethics is very much against the position of Rona.



Location of trial is irrelevant in a world of justice

Given that the case will be tried on neutral territory, there is a degree of justice for both parties. Holding the trial in the courts of community A does not make sense because the infringement was not done in the effective area of the law of community A. Besides, there is no law in community A on prohibitions on intellectual property. Neutral territories have traditionally been locations to justly settle disputes involving different laws of different territories. Holding the trial in community B is just fair because the law that is in effect in that area was broken there. Given the nature of the law of community B, and assuming that the case will be handled with untainted justice, Rona will be proven guilty, and this is also the basis of the judgment of the case.



REFERENCES

[1] Feiser, J (ed.), 2003, “Ethics,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm.