The two retail companies picked are Walmart and Costco whose 2017 Financial statement links are provided below: WALMART https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ wmt/financials?query=income- statement COSTCO https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ cost/financials?query=income- statement Both organizations are well known brands and position themselves well with their customer base. Walmart’s value proposition is “We save people money so they can live better”. On the other hand, Costco’s value proposition is “All-in-one convenience and everyday affordability”. Both retailers focus on cost saving for their customers. Looking at their financial statements and by analyzing them a few key areas are evident when comparing the two organization. Looking at the current ratio and quick ratio we can determine the short-term solvency of each organization. The current ratio can be determined by dividing the assets by the liabilities. Walmart’s current ratio sits at 0.86 while Costco’s sits at 0.99. The quick ratio is c...
If you found a one-of-a-kind prototype of a revolutionary new mobile phone lying on a public bench, what would you do with it? What would be the consequences of your chosen action?
A number of issues arise when we consider this question. First is the issue of our moral responsibility to others and society. Second is on intellectual property and the third, the ethical implications of our actions. I will address these three issues separately.
- On moral responsibility: If a one-of-a-kind prototype lays unattended to on a park/public bench, several possible scenarios come to mind. It could be that the inventor misplaced it or forgot it on the bench while having a morning or late evening stroll. Whatever line of action is taken would clearly fall into one ethical perspective or another. Virtue ethics, which places value on the moral character of the actor and the virtuousness of the act, will dictate that any corresponding action that results in me taking the phone is wrong and immoral in itself (Hursthouse, R. & Pettigrove, 2016). A deontological ethics or a duty-based ethics, on the other hand, will require in some form that individuals desist from acts that do not align with duty (Alexander & Moore, 2016). In other words, it will be considered immoral to steal this prototype since I owe it as duty to society not to steal. Yet a consequentialist perspective, particularly a utilitarian perspective will encourage that I take the action that promises the most utility (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2015). This may include me taking an action that maximises the new patent laws that places priority on who was first to file (Kevin, 2014).
- On intellectual property: Intellectual property refers to those type of properties that are intangible and are the output of human intellect. They cover three broad areas such as patents, trademarks and copyrights (Sullivan, 2016). The prototype phone represents an intellectual property that is patentable. Taking such will amount to stealing.
The action: My preferred action will lean toward a virtue and deontological ethics. I will take the prototype phone to the closest media house or police station where an announcement could be made for the owner to come retrieve it. Since I do not have the concept notes and design information about the phone, it is less profitable to me as compared to its profit to the inventor.
- On the consequence: The foreseeable consequences of my action may include: (a) The owner is identified and the device is returned to her/him (b) The owner is not identified and it becomes a state owned property. Either way, I have avoided the wrongful act of stealing the phone.
Does the value of a parcel of land come only from the profits it can generate? If not, what makes land valuable? Does it ever have any value that is not recognized by the law?
The concept of property (any kind of property) as we know it today was greatly influenced by the works of John Locke. Locke argues that a claim to property will require that a person mixes labour to a common asset or belonging (Tuckness, 2018). This claim can be traded or exchanged for something of commensurate value, such as money. The value of a land however does not only come from the profits it can generate. There are certain intangible features that a landed property may possess that may not be exchanged for money. This may include sentimental attachments and its characteristic positioning for a people within a community/ecosystem. If for example, a land that harbours several trees is sold to a real estate company, there are sentimental attachments the trees provide to the seller/community, and as a habitat for other lower animals, this cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
The perceived value of a land is usually measured by its location, the size, its ability to meet the need for the buyer and more importantly the possibility of appreciation. A land possesses values that are rarely recognised by law, such as its sentimental value for the owner and possibly the instrumental value for the ecosystem and other living organisms.
What is the role of governments in regulating the use of any form of property? Why do laws work so well maintain standard uses, and what would be alternative ways to set boundaries on what businesses could do?
Government’s role in regulation property use is to promote fairness and equity. More importantly, it is to protect the rights of inventors and property owners from not receiving proper compensation for their intellectual output. An alternative way to set boundaries on the practices of businesses especially large corporations is to seek ways to create an equal footing for smaller corporation. Also, laws need to be unequivocal about the extent to which properties that may be considered public can be owned solely by a company. A classic example is this week’s reading on Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980).
Conclusion:
The issue of property becomes a bit complicated when we take into consideration intangible properties and the ethical concerns that follow. Several debates come up such as the first to file vs first to invent, the issue of consent in genetically modified genes, if living organisms are patentable etc.
References
Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/
Diamond. v. Chakrabarty. 447 U.S. 303. 1980. Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.
Hursthouse, R. & Pettigrove, G. (2016). Virtue Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/
Kevin, P. (2014, Apr 22). The debate between First to File and First to Invent. Retrieved from: https://sites.udel.edu/
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2015, Aug 1). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Santa Clara University. Retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/
Sullivan, A.M. (2016). Cultural Heritage & New Media: A Future for the Past. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property. Retrieved from: https://repository.jmls.edu/
Tuckness, A. (2018). Locke's Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N. (ed.). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/
Comments