 |
| Mitsubishi Co. logo |
Controversy
In 2008, General
Electric filed a complaint with the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) (Patenting 8). The purpose of the complaint was to stop
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. from importing wind turbines into the United
States because General Electric believed that aspects of MHI wind turbines
infringed upon three of General Electrical patents (Patenting 9). The three
specific patents that General Electric was referring to were U.S. patent No.
7,321,221, U.S. patent No. 5,083,039, and U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985 or turbines
maintaining constant operation despite changing wind speeds and lower voltages,
and decoupling turbines from the grid in effort to avoid damage during un
expected power fluctuations (Quinn 2). After further investigation, a Texas
federal judge ruled that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries must pay 170 million
dollars to General Electric for infringing upon a General Electric wind turbine
patent, a way to keep wind turbines connected to grids during voltage
fluctuations without receiving significant damage (Rautenberg 1). The court
dismissed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries plea that the patent
 |
| CEO: Shunichi Miyanaga |
Stakeholders
are those that have an interest in a company's actions because they are
affected by the ups and downs of that company. In this case, the stakeholders
are all of the Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries employees, companies that purchase the wind turbines produced
by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and General Electric. Specifically, within
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the company’s turbine design team is a stakeholder
because before the creation and production of a product the product must be
reviewed to ensure that the company is not infringing on patent laws.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ head executives are at fault for passing the
product through. This will affect the entire company because after having to
pay 170 million dollars to General Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries stock
is affected and employees would have to find a way to make up losses. General
Electric is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries competition for the production of wind
turbines, therefore if Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is able to produce an
equally competitive product General Electric will lose customers, which would
lead to fiscal losses.
 |
| Chairman board: Hideaki Omiya |
Individualism is
defined as the habit of being self-independent and self-reliant. The individual
theory values the business, the business owner’s choices, and the business
profits. The individualism theory looks to maximize profits while remaining
inside the constraints of the law. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries decision to go
ahead with the production of the wind turbines was done with the hope to maximize
the company’s profits. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries broke the law, and went
against individualism theory, with the patent infringement, thus the decision
of the court was to have Mitsubishi Heavy Industries pay General Electric.
Utilitarianism
The utilitarian
ethical theory is founded on being able to predict the consequences of a given
outcome. A utilitarian believes that the decision that will generate the
greatest benefit to the largest group of people is the ethically correct
decision. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was able to generate some short-term
happiness by producing the wind turbines, this short-term happiness stems from
the financial boom that is brought about by consumers purchasing the wind
turbines. The ensuing multi-million dollar payment tot General Electric lead to
a serious financial loss. This loss in no way generates happiness for the
company; it does the exact opposite because the company must then find an
alternative way to make up for the unexpected financial losses. A utilitarian would
consider Mitsubishi Heavy Industries wind turbine production unethical because
of the long-term effects that the 170 million dollar payment creates.
Kantianism
Kantianism is based off of
four basic principles: one – act rationally – do not act inconsistently in your
own actions or consider yourself exempt from rules, two – allow and help people
to make rational decisions, three – respect people, their autonomy, and
individual needs and differences, four – be motivated by Good Will, seeking to
do what is the right because it is right. Kantianism also makes use of the
formula of humanity, which has three key components humanity, end, and means.
Because of advancements in technology wind turbines across the board are very
similar from company to company, which makes patent infringement easy. A
Kantian would agree the Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries executives acted irrationally. The means, or the financial
gains that would come from the turbine production, interfered with the
company’s rationality. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did not adhere to the patent
laws and were not motivated by good will; instead Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
was motivated by money. A Kantian would view the turbine production at
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as unethical.
Virtue Theory
 |
| General Electric Co. logo |
There are four primary
virtues are courage, justice, temperance, and honesty. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries employees did
not act with courage. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries took the easy road and
decided to steal the ideas for wind turbine design from general electric. The
MHI design team must be more aware of patent laws, and those that see a
possible problem should have the courage to stand up against those actions.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries employees did not act honestly by passing the wind
turbine design through production, the higher ups expect that the designers
would have followed regulations before the turbines design was finalized.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did not act justly because it would be hard work to
design an innovative design, and last work to steal. By not fulfilling the four
basic principles of virtue theory, this case would be considered unethical.
Conclusion
After a brief
review of the standpoint of each of the four theories, the actions of
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries would be deemed unethical. Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries could have prevented the 170 million dollar payment to General
electric by being stricter with the turbine designers to ensure no patents were
infringed upon. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries executives should have set up checkpoints
in the design process that could weed out designs that could be considered for
patent infringements.
References
“Brand Message.”
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Global
Website. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 31 March 2014. Web. 03 October 2014. <http://www.mhi-global.com/company/brand/index.html>
“Corporate Overview.” Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Global Website. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 31 March 2014. Web. 03
October 2014. < http://www.mhi-global.com/company/aboutmhi/outline/contents/index.html>
Decker, Susan.
“GE Wins Wind-Turbine Patent Case brought by Mitsubishi Heavy.” Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, 06 July 2012. Web. 03 October 2014. < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/ge-wins-patent-case-brought-by-mitsubishi-heavy-over-turbines.html
>
“Dividends.” Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Global
Website. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
27 June 2014. Web. 03 October 2014. < http://www.mhi-global.com/finance/stock/allotment/index.html>
“Fact Sheet.” General Electric. General Electric, 01
December 2013. Web. 03 October 2014.
<http://www.ge.com/about-us/fact-sheet
>
“Patenting the
Winds of Innovation.” Wind Systems
Magazine. Media Solutions inc. 01 April
2012. Web. 03 October 2014.<http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/356/patenting-the-winds-of-innovation>
“Photographs of
the Board Members.” Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. Global Website. Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, 26 Jun3 2014. Web. 03 October 2014. <http://www.mhi-global.com/company/aboutmhi/officers/photo.html#line01>
“Privacy
Policy.” Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Ltd. Global Website. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
01 October 2013. Web. 03 October 2014. < http://www.mhi-mme.com/privacy.html
>
Quinn, Gene. “GE
Wins at Federal Circuit in Mitsubishi Wind Turbine Case.” IPWatchdog. IPWatchdog, 09 July 2012.
Web. 03 October 2014 <http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/09/ge-wins-at-federal-circuit-in-mitsubishi- wind-turbine-case/id=26243/>
Rautenberg,
Katherine. Davis, Jess. “Mitsubishi Can’t Knock Out $170 Wind Patent Judgement.” Law 360. Portfolio Media Inc., 29 May 2013. Web. 03 October 2014. <http://www.law360.com/articles/445617/mitsubishi-can-t-knock-out-170m-wind-patent-judgment>
Watanabe,
Chisaki. “Mitsubishi Heavy, GE Settle Wind Patent Infringement Cases.”Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, 13 December 2013. Web. 03 October 2014. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/mitsubishi-heavy-ge-settle-wind-patent-infringement-cases.html >
“Wind Turbines.”
General Electric. General Electric,
01 January 2014. Web. 03 October 2014.
<http://www.ge-energy.com/wind>
“Wind Turbine
Generators.” Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Ltd. Global Website. Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, 31 March 2014. Web. 03 October 2014. <http://www.mhi-global.com/products/category/wind_turbine_generators.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment