Ethical reasoning 伦理推理
The actions of Tencent as far as intellectual property is concerned raise a number of questions, which mainly question whether this company’s actions amount to ethical violation and disregard of code of conduct/ethics in this case, the ACS Code of Conduct for an Australian IT company. To begin with, Tencent’s actions can be analysed from the perspective of deontology and utilitarian theories, which are duty-based and consequence-based theories respectively. From the perspective of deontology, an action is ethically correct if it does not violate one’s obligations and duties to another person or the larger society (Hunt and Vitell 2006). This is irrespective of whether such actions promote one’s happiness or not in society. Speaking from this perspective, one of the critical aspects that emerge from the analysis of Tencent’s actions as far as intellectual property is concerned is the fact that this company has in the past acted in an unethical way. In this case, Tencent did not honour its obligation and duty to respect the intellectual property of other companies such as AOL and Douyin, which are some of its competitors across the globe. For instance, whereas allowing posts on its platforms to tarnish the image of Douyin was a platform upon which Tencent could exploit and enhance its perception in the market, such an action amounts violation of its duty and obligation as far as respect to property rights are concerned. Moreover, the company’s actions cannot be justified since respecting the intellectual property of third parties, in this particular case AOL and Douyin, was part of its policy, which defined its duties and obligations as businesses not only in the Chinese environment but also on the global markets.
就知识产权而言，腾讯的行为引发了一系列问题，主要是该公司的行为是否构成了道德违反和对行为准则/道德的漠视。在本案中，是澳大利亚IT公司的ACS行为准则。首先，腾讯的行为可以从义务论和功利主义理论的角度进行分析，这两种理论分别是基于责任的理论和基于后果的理论。从义务论的角度来看，如果一个行为没有违反一个人对另一个人或整个社会的义务和义务，那么它在道德上是正确的（Hunt和Vitell，2006）。这与这些行为是否能在社会上促进一个人的幸福无关。从这个角度讲，从分析腾讯在知识产权方面的行为中得出的一个关键方面是，该公司过去的行为不道德。在这起案件中，腾讯没有履行其尊重AOL和斗音等其他公司知识产权的义务和义务，这些公司是腾讯在全球的一些竞争对手。例如，允许其平台上的帖子玷污斗银的形象是腾讯可以利用并提升其市场认知的平台，但这种行为违反了腾讯在产权方面的职责和义务。此外，由于尊重第三方的知识产权（在本案中是AOL和斗银）是其政策的一部分，该公司的行为是不合理的，该政策将其职责和义务界定为不仅在中国环境中，而且在全球市场上的业务。
Another theory that could help explains whether Tencent acted ethically with regards to the intellectual property rights of AOL and Douyin is utilitarian theory. In reference to Campbell (2016), utilitarian theory argues an action is ethical correct if it yields the greatest benefits to many people in society. Speaking from this perspective, one can argue that Tencent’s actions that infringed the intellectual property rights of AOL and Douyin were ethical since such actions would have yield the greatest benefits to its shareholders and investors. For instance, in getting a domain name that was almost similar to AOL’s software, this company would have easily gained worldwide recognition, increased its revenue and as such enhance the profits for its stakeholders. The rapid expansion would also mean the Tencent will increase its tax revenue to the government as well as reduce unemployment not only in China but also in other parts of the globe where it has established its operations. Whereas this is the case, there is a need to observe that Tencent’s actions undermined the rights of both AOL and Douyin. In this case, these companies too had a greater impact in their respective markets and as such, infringing their intellectual property rights not only undermined their rights but also threatened the good of a large section of the society who depended on them.
另一个有助于解释腾讯在AOL和斗因的知识产权问题上的行为是否合乎道德的理论是功利主义理论。参考Campbell（2016），功利主义理论认为，如果一种行为能为社会中的许多人带来更大的利益，那么它就是合乎道德的。从这个角度讲，可以说腾讯侵犯AOL和斗音知识产权的行为是合乎道德的，因为这样的行为会给股东和投资者带来更大的利益。例如，如果获得一个与AOL软件几乎相似的域名，这家公司将很容易获得全球认可，增加收入，从而提高利益相关者的利润。这一快速扩张还意味着腾讯将增加政府的税收收入，并不仅减少中国的失业率，还将减少其在全球其他地区的业务。事实就是如此，但有必要观察到腾讯的行为损害了AOL和斗音的权利。在这种情况下，这些公司在各自的市场上也产生了更大的影响，因此，侵犯它们的知识产权不仅损害了它们的权利，而且威胁到依赖它们的大部分社会的利益。
Apart from analysis Tencent actions from the perspective of deontology and utilitarian theories, they can also be analysed from the perspective of the ACS Code of Conduct for an Australian IT company. According to the Australian Computer Society (2014), whereas firms such as Tencent have a responsibility to protect the interests of their stakeholders such as their investors, shareholders and their customers, they still have a duty to respect the intellectual property of others. Speaking from this perspective, in both the AOL and Douyin cases, the court made a ruling against Tencent with an argument that the this company had violated these companies’ intellectual property.
除了从道义论和功利主义理论的角度分析腾讯的行为外，还可以从澳大利亚一家IT公司的ACS行为准则的角度进行分析。据澳大利亚计算机学会（2014年）称，腾讯等公司有责任保护其利益相关者（如投资者、股东和客户）的利益，但它们仍有义务尊重他人的知识产权。从这个角度讲，在AOL和斗音两起案件中，法院都对腾讯作出了判决，理由是该公司侵犯了这些公司的知识产权。
Conclusion 结论
In conclusion, despite the fact that Tencent has a concrete written policy that stipulates that its respects the intellectual property of third parties, its actions in the past reveal that it has been involved in a number of intellectual property infringement incidences. This implies that from a deontology theory perspective, the company has not been able to keep its honour its own duties and obligations as far as respecting the intellectual property of third parties is concerned. Similarly, from as utilitarian perspective, Tencent has in the past engaged in actions that undermine the greater good of the majority through violating intellectual property rights of others. Speaking from this perspective, this report concludes that Tencent does not meet the expected standards of ethical behaviour and as such, it does not meet the threshold to warrant investment from the investment company. In this case, investing in Tencent will be tantamount to sanctioning some of its intellectual property infringement incidences.
总之，尽管腾讯有一个具体的书面政策，规定其尊重第三方的知识产权，但其过去的行为表明，它已经卷入了多起知识产权侵权事件。这意味着，从义务论的角度来看，就尊重第三方的知识产权而言，公司未能履行其自身的义务和义务。同样，从功利主义的角度来看，腾讯过去也曾通过侵犯他人的知识产权来破坏大多数人的更大利益。从这个角度来看，本报告得出结论，腾讯没有达到预期的道德行为标准，因此，它没有达到从投资公司获得投资的门槛。在这种情况下，投资腾讯将等同于制裁其一些知识产权侵权事件。