LEO BABY T REG NO. 5069

LEO BABY TVVISM, HYDERABAD

A CASE STUDY ON:Crime that pays (and pretty well, too)

OBJECTIVE OF THE CASE

To examine the major legal issues facing international business companies.

To understand how different political and legal systems affect the conduct of business.

To profile the idea of intellectual property and the basis of concern and controversy.

LETS GO THROUGH THE CASE

• Software technology is plagued by the problem of digital piracy—the illegal copying and/or distribution of software for personal or business use

• Presently software piracy ranges from a single individual’s making an unauthorized copy of a software product for use, sale, or free distribution to a company’s mismanagement of its software license

• Principal types of piracy include: end-user piracy, pre-installed software, Internet piracy, counterfeiting, and online auction piracy.

What is the relationship among the various governments, institutions, organizations, and companies in developing legal codes to combat

software piracy?

• Technically, the standards of software piracy are unequivocal. Thus, parties have been hopeful that collective political arrangements and legal actions by companies, associaqtions, governments, and institutions would lead to a decline in global software piracy.

• coordinated anti-piracy initiatives such as high-profile legal proceedings against companies using illegal software, increased government cooperation in providing legal protection for intellectual property, and the criminalization of software piracy have proven to be largely ineffective.

• Even efforts at the transnational level to get nations to sign treaties and to require them to protect and enforce intellectual property rights according to global, not local, standards have not yielded the desired results.

• Unfortunately, the ease with which software can be duplicated, sold, and distributed continues to baffle the industry.

should software companies, industry associations, home governments, or transnational institutions take the lead in aggressively negotiating with the

governments of countries with high piracy rates? Why?

• Because of the enormous economic, technological, and political implications of the problem, software companies, industry associations, home governments, and transnational institutions should all take lead roles in negotiating with the governments of countries with high piracy rates.

• Each of those parties has related but slightly different arguments to put forth, and it is very important to make the point that all of the parties are highly vested in the issue—therefore, they should all step forward.

• Further, different parties will have stronger or weaker relationships with the governments of high piracy nations.

• Those parties who have the most to offer those governments will be in a position to make their arguments most persuasively.

• Thus, efforts of all the stakeholders in the issue should be thoughtfully coordinated.

Can the software industry expect to contain and control software piracy without eventually relying on governments to take a more active role? Why

would the software industry dislike greater government regulation?

• If the software industry could successfully develop technical and business measures to thwart counterfeiters, government intervention would be unnecessary.

• Thus far, the industry’s best efforts have been unsuccessful.

• Given the value of the products involved, the “global” appeal of pirated software, and the relative ease with which counterfeiting occurs on a worldwide basis, the temptation for counterfeiters to continue their activities is irresistible

• In spite of the need for assistance and cooperation from all stakeholders, the software industry could presumably object to greater government regulation;

• while innovation moves at lightning speed, regulation tends to lag well behind technological developments and market realities.

How do u think consumers in high theft countries use to justify software piracy? Similarly, what ideas or conditions lead consumers in lower theft countries to

respect IPRs?

• Consumers in high theft countries tend to share a collectivist mindset; they see property as being common to all and existing for the benefit of all—often they do not understand the basic concept of intellectual property rights.

• As with many other products, they want to acquire them at the lowest possible cost.

• On the other hand, consumers in lower theft countries tend to share an individualist mindset; the concept of intellectual property rights is well understood and long established within their countries and cultures.

• IPRs are seen to be a necessity for economic development and growth; royalties and profits are seen as the just fruits of creativity and investment.