8.12 The Intermittent Windshield Wiper and Its Little Inventor

Case Study Analysis: Intermittent Windshield Wiper and Inventor
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Intermittent Windshield Wiper and Inventor
Discussion Questions
Is it ethical to use an idea based on the risk analysis that the owner of that idea simply cannot afford to litigate the matter?
It is not ethical to take advantage of the financial status of a person as far as intellectual property is concerned. Mr. Kearns and his struggle with the automobile industry show the importance of patents. More so, large companies or powerful people who take advantage of underprivileged individuals should receive severe punishment as a cautionary measure for the future generation CITATION Bou12 l 1033 (Bouchoux, 2012). Besides, there are numerous ways for a company or individuals to adopt ideas without causing problems. I think ford would have hired Mr. Kearns as a consultant during the mass production of the wipers or paid him for patent rights to develop his idea. The whole ordeal lowered the credibility of the companies among its customers and investors. The problem started when these companies neglected the input of the inventor. Whether or not, their formal group of engineers could have developed the idea eventually, they should have included the inventor in matters of development and financial revenues. The process could have been easier for both parties.
Why was the intermittent wiper system so important to the automakers?
The intermittent wiper system was useful because of its ability to reduce accidents on the road.

The developers of motor vehicles used glass for clarity while driving, as well as to protect the passengers from the wind and other forces of nature CITATION Dic12 l 1033 (Dickirson, 2012). Nonetheless, there was a problem when there was fog, rain, or mist because all these phenomena made the glass window opaque. More so, the system proved convenient because the driver could clean the window while operating the vehicle. Other methods would require a driver to stop and clean it before moving. The system saved time and resources in the long run. Besides, the invention guaranteed adaptability of all car models to harsh terrains. More cars could be imported to countries and regions where snow and rain were regularly experienced. In short, the wiper system increased the functionality of all cars for all automobile factories. The net profit would increase with the invention in terms of quality of vehicle and demand.
Could Kearns have done anything further to protect himself?
I think he could have created the firm for production before presenting the device to Ford. If a large tech firm approached Ford with the invention, the managers of Ford would have thought twice before trying to break patent rights. Mr. Kearns had a revolutionary idea but lacked a proper platform to unveil his product. He presented his invention to an individual instead of a company with financial and political strength. Apart from this, I think obtaining a patent secured his intellectual property rights. These cases proved that patents are an important aspect of individual growth. The companies were unable to prove that any of their engineers were on the verge of developing that kind of system.
If you were Executive with one of the companies still in litigation with Kearns, would you settle the case? Why or why not?
I would settle with Mr. Kearns because the availability of a patent proved that the wiper system was an intellectual property of the plaintiff. Taking the matter to court could create problems involving the civil rights of individuals in a modern country. Activists from consumer groups would protest against mistreatment of the underprivileged members of the communities. The matter would imply that the company mistreats people from low social classes. Investigations on how the management treats its employees and the community might destroy the reputation of the company. Additionally, creating a good relationship with Mr. Kearns might foster future collaboration. I might consider hiring the plaintiff as a consultant in the production process as a diplomatic technique of improving our image on a local and international level. The simultaneous court cases involving other companies presented an opportunity to raise the image of the company. Using the situation to an emphasis on how much we appreciate the contribution of the inventor and rebuke the ignorance of other organizations.
Why do you think the auto manufacturers fought Kearns so extensively? Is it possible that their engineers had been working simultaneously on the idea?
I think the companies fought the inventor extensively because his proposal would affect their profit margins. Besides, the rules of intellectual property demanded that the person received some form of royalty. The invention would take years before it entered the public domain CITATION Bou12 l 1033 (Bouchoux, 2012). Therefore, they would be forced to pay until the time ran out. More so, the fact that Mr. Kearns developed and presented it as an individual created the impression that he had no social or financial stamina to pursue the matter further. They figured that they would pursue him in an informal process to abandon his accusations with a one-time payment.
There was no possible way that the engineers had developed an invention similar to what Kearns had. They would have patented it because the glass window issue affected the whole automobile industry. Having a patent for the solution resulted in a competitive edge, and the rivals would need permission to use the system. According to Bouchoux (2012), the fact that Kearns applied and received a patent shows that it was a completely new invention. I don’t think that Kearns would have pursued the issue if the engineers proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were on a similar path of discovery.

References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Bouchoux, D. E. (2012). Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Dickirson, G. D. (2012). Automotive Climate Control 116 Years of Progress. Lulu.com.