Legal Issues

There have always existed regular clashes between business motives, which have come to be linked to the money or profit drive, and ethical and moral considerations which are deemed no less important in business circles. From time to time, it has been found that many people will try to trample underfoot the ethical requirements of an organization or of a work practice just to achieve their business goals. This essay discusses one such case involving two competing firms, all of which decides to use questionable means to gain at the expense of the others.

Discussion
Mixing business issues and those that are personal goes against the requirements of the law (Jennings, 2006). In business, organizations are in fact separate legal entities from their owners which can sue and be sued. As such, any organization is independent from its own directors and stakeholders. That aside, organizations are supposed to avoid what has come to be generally called conflict of interest. This is where a company that has interests in another one uses this advantage to seek to gain at the expense of others. In this context, it was a commission and breach of this business ethical clause of conflict of interest for Microsoft to use the services of the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT).

This is because Microsoft was funding the trade group and as such there was no way it was going to act independently (Jennings, 2006). The greatest breach in this particular case is that although Microsoft knew and understood that it was against the law and unethical to knowingly withhold information from the public, it did not disclose that it had a certain private relations with the trade group and so the latter could not effectively operate or act as an promoter or a public relations agency with the level of neutrality that the job required. The other breach committed by Microsoft was that apart from knowingly concealing this information, it went ahead and made the public believe that this was not the case, thereby deceiving them (Jennings, 2006). Business ethics require that a firm or seller has to disclose all relevant information to the customers so that the customers can make informed decisions.

Owing to the intense rivalry between Microsoft and Oracle, the latter sought for ways through which it could jeopardize the sales of the former by ensuring that what was in the secret came to the fore. Thus far, Oracle did not act in any ethical manner. As the only way to have people understand that what Microsoft was doing was illegal and unethical, Oracle had to make the public understand the fact that Microsoft funded ACT. This was also not a bad move but just part of competitive strategies. So Oracle hires a private investigator to do the work on its behalf. Indeed there was no wrongdoing by Oracle in this. Competitors will go to lengths to outdo each other. Oracle was right in that it had the responsibility as a concerned firm to tell the public the truth (Jennings, 2006).

When Group International (GI) gets the job to investigate, it is not breaching any law. Neither is it acting unethically. It is just doing its work of investigation for which it is licensed. It does not matter how the investigations are done or who gets what in exchange, as long as they do it willingly. The chairman of Oracle is not in breach of any business law as far as hiring GI is concerned. What matters is that GI has to do its work as best it can and report its findings to Oracle. The use or the attempted use of bribes by GIs Ms. Lopez is what raises issues of ethics. Under the law of ethical action, it is not right for anyone to use coercion or duress to get information, regardless of its nature, from another person (Jennings, 2006). The fact that Ms. Lopez offered to use money after the janitors refused to willfully hand over the trash required is proof enough that diplomacy had failed and she was now using coercion.

This is unethical and amounts to psychological torture of the people involved  the janitors. While it was right for her to work on her assignments, it was her duty to use the right ways. Finally, it was not right for Ms. Lopez to reveal who she was working for, or at least to produce her card which made it easy for ACT to find out that it was Oracle who was investigating them. That was unethical on her part.

Conclusion
Ethics in business is usually a very important consideration which must never be neglected in exchange for business gain. Organizations ought to act ethically, including revealing to the public all necessary information and avoiding engagement in deals that bring about a conflict of interests. Even if there is rivalry between two companies, it is required that all their acts be driven not by selfish gains by the requirements of the law as far as ethical actions are concerned. In this case, each of the three players committed different offences as far as acting ethically is concerned. The only person who can be exempted from much blame of acting unethically is Mr. Ellison, who, just as he claimed, was acting in the interests if the public. However, such acts as his ought not to have collided with the interests of others if this was to be a justified move. So he, too, acted unethically to some extent.