Reading 08: Corporate Personhood
Corporate personhood is the idea that corporate entities are entitled to some, but not all, of the same legal rights as people. For example, “they have free speech rights” (Cox) and, as of the Hobby Lobby case, “for-profit corporations can have a religion that the government must not interfere in the practice of, just as individuals do” (Cox). Some of the issues with corporate personhood is determining appropriate actions for when that company breaks the law and deciding what rights really belong to a non living being. Additionally, those working for a company may not always agree with a company’s “stance” which can result in people protesting their work like when “a group of engineers refused to build a security tool necessary for Maven” (Tiku) for Google.
The case study I read was about Microsoft. Microsoft was brought to court for antitrust violations with regards to its practice of bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system. In particular during the case, “The Justice Department and the 19 states pressing the suit contended that Microsoft had hurt consumers by stifling competition in the software marketplace, particularly at the expense of the Netscape browser” (Brinkley). More specifically, “the company had tried to block Netscape from the market by making exclusive agreements for its browser with computer companies, online services and Internet service providers” (Brinkley). I’m actually very torn about this issue. There are reasons why I agree with each side. I’m not really sure that I fully understand what is wrong with Microsoft essentially putting Internet Explorer with Windows. Microsoft had built itself to prominence with its Windows operating system, so why shouldn’t it be allowed to use the leverage it’s earned to promote more? Microsoft can choose the providers and computer companies they want to do business with, so why shouldn’t they use what they have that they want (i.e. the operating system) to benefit themselves too (i.e. accessibility to Internet Explorer)? The main argument I tend to hear against antitrust issues such as these is that a company “with a monopoly” such as Microsoft at the time shouldn’t take advantage of their competitive edge to snuff out the little guy. This is due to hogging the wealth and discouraging innovation. I guess I understand the hogging the wealth argument to some degree because competitors would have a hard time thriving themselves, and I suppose to a degree this “discourages innovation” since other companies wouldn’t have the resources or presence to really compete using their newer and better features for certain technologies. I suppose competition does spur innovation in this case. At the same time, however, isn’t it weird to punish a tech giant like Microsoft for making a good product that people use? I say this especially because you can argue that the tech giants are usually among the most innovative in the tech industry, so to punish a company because they use their competitive advantage for a product feels like a limitation to innovation as well in a way. I don’t know how true this actually is, but I feel that had Microsoft been severely punished, it would make big companies even more wary about going into another market where they could have a large innovative impact. If the company makes a good product, why shouldn’t they use the means that they have to promote it? They can use the feedback they get from customers they net through these practices to continue innovation in that area. As such, I think the punishments Microsoft got were sufficient even though I do understand to a degree why Microsoft may have been in the wrong. In hindsight now though, the case itself is pretty ironic since “technology has left the core issue — the browser wars — in the dust” (Chan) due to pervasive broadband.
Finally, I think if companies are to be treated the same as individual persons, they should also be expected to have the same ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities. I think this because I find it absurd that individuals who do a very wrong thing can be punished severely, whereas punishments to a company for a similar action can be like a slap on the wrist. It seems almost backwards because a whole company should have more of a means to serve a debt to society than the average regular person. The punishment is disproportionate. However, the problem is that you have to ask the question “where does the fictional person of a corporation begin and end” (Cox)? With regards to Microsoft, it’s still largely because I’m on the fence, but I think their punishment was sufficient in this case. However, if Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, were found to be responsible for some homicide, I would think they should have severe punishments as any person would for such a crime.
