this with large corporations that gets any media attention inevitably just plants negative seeds into future companies’ marketing strategies. Was it unethical for Intel to use its compilers and its libraries of software code in the way it did, or is this permissible for companies in a free market economy? Explain your answer. This is a very arguable subject; however, if we go by the three moral values that perfectly competitive free markets achieve to be ethical, the answer seems clear. In such a market, buyers and sellers exchange with one another that is just and for each party. They maximize the “equal” amount of goods they want to allocate, and bring the achievements in such a way that the buyer’s and have a right to be of free consent (Vasquez, 2012) see point a above. As far as - sellers’ – for Intel, they tried their best to sell it at a competitive price. The second value, on page 206, is that the goods and resources are efficient. This is where morals become cloudy. Intel Intel’s created a product in an area in the economy where demand was high. On the other hand, Intel was not to their consumer knowing that they product they created could being “morally ethical” work with the AMD processor, but was altered so that it Intel knowing and didn’t. By purposefully doing that, I think they were wrong. The last moral value listed on page 207, is to establish justice and maximize utility that respects buyers and sellers negative rights (Vasquez, 2012). This is achieved by freedom of opportunity and voluntary exchange. Intel wasn’t forcing their buyers to by its libraries or resource material, they Intel just tried to persuade/bribe them – – their buyers by offering rebates or monies back. I believe this can leave a company having a pernicious effect on its outcome of a product. By action doing this, it left its own Intel’s company to be the though they priced the product lower, it still put “under microscope.” Even a viable outcome or provide buyers with a satisfying bundle. I can think of didn’t prove all over again. By offering rebates, it made other companies subject to “Ford/Pinto Nightmares” fail such as Dell Computers. Without Intel, it would be hard for companies such as HP, Dell, etc., to try and be a viable functioning company. Reference
this with large corporations that gets any media attention inevitably just plants negative seeds into future companies’ marketing strategies. Was it unethical for Intel to use its compilers and its libraries of software code in the way it did, or is this permissible for companies in a free market economy? Explain your answer. This is a very arguable subject; however, if we go by the three moral values that perfectly competitive free markets achieve to be ethical, the answer seems clear. In such a market, buyers and sellers exchange with one another that is just and “equal” for each party. They maximize the amount of goods they want to allocate, and bring the achievements in such a way that the buyer’s and sellers’ have a right to be of free consent (Vasquez, 2012) – see point a above. As far as - for Intel, they tried their best to sell it at a competitive price. The second value, on page 206, is that the goods and resources are efficient. This is where Intel’s morals become cloudy. Intel created a product in an area in the economy where demand was high. On the other hand, Intel was not being “morally ethical” to their consumer knowing that they product they created could work with the AMD processor, but was altered so that it didn’t. By Intel knowing and purposefully doing that, I think they were wrong. The last moral value listed on page 207, is to establish justice and maximize utility that respects buyers and sellers negative rights (Vasquez, 2012). This is achieved by freedom of opportunity and voluntary exchange. Intel wasn’t forcing their buyers to by its libraries or resource material, they – Intel just tried to persuade/bribe them – their buyers by offering rebates or monies back. I believe this can leave a company having a pernicious effect on its outcome of a product. By Intel’s action doing this, it left its own company to be put “under the microscope.” Even though they priced the product lower, it still didn’t prove a viable outcome or provide buyers with a satisfying bundle. I can think of “Ford/Pinto Nightmares” all over again. By offering rebates, it made other companies subject to fail such as Dell Computers. Without Intel, it would be hard for companies such as HP, Dell, etc., to try and be a viable functioning company. Reference