Situation 1:

Smooth is the market leader in the market for hygienic products. I will assume that the secret of
the success of the product lies in the formula of the product. Therefore, the Viriles producers
were privileged to receive an application from the chemist who developed Smooth formula.
The company should hire the chemist out rightly. Since the chemist developed the most
successful product in the market, he would greatly help in improving the uality of Virile. The
company should place the chemist in the uality control department. !e would help in detecting
certain defects in Virile and propose changes that would help improve the uality of the product
"Sanghera, #$$%, p. ##&'.
Situation 2:
The (hemist would greatly help the uality control group. !e would provide the group with ideas
that would help in improving the uality of Virile. The chemist would help in increasing the
uality of Virile )y incorporating some compounds found in Smooth, the market leader. !e may
even alter the formula of Virile to make it resem)le that of Smooth since he did not sign a non*
disclosure agreement with Smooth. +ack of a non*disclosure agreement makes the chemist )e
at li)erty to reveal the formula of Smooth to the company ",e-atteis, #$$., p. #/&'. !owever,
the company should sign a non*disclosure agreement with the chemist to prevent him from
disclosing the formula to other parties in the future in case he will leave the company.
Situation 3:
I think it is logical that team mem)ers would ask the chemist uestions on Smooth, out of
curiosity, as the product is the market leader. !owever, it is unethical for employees to ask very
specific uestions on Smooth. 0mployees should concentrate on how they can improve the
uality of their product Virile. (oncentrating on Smooth may disrupt the efforts of the company
to improve the uality of Virile. The company should strive to differentiate Virile from Smooth to
portray Virile as )eing of higher uality. The company may use a com)ination of uality and
price to differentiate the product "1upta, 1ollakota 2 Srinivasan, #$$/, p. 34'. The company
should use the uality of Virile to 5ustify its price.
Situation 4:
6ltering the formula for Virile to make it look like that of Smooth, would cause une7pected
damage to the company. Therefore, the company should not market the new improved Virile.
The company should look for a way of improving Virile without copying Smooth. The company
risks litigation from Smooth, due to copyright infringement of its product should it market the
new improved Virile. In addition, the new improved Virile makes the company lose its )rand
identity )y copying Smooth. This may make the company lose its uniue selling advantage "Tur,
#$88, p. 99'. -aking an e7act copy of Smooth would actually )e damaging to the company. It
shows that Smooth is of high uality than Virile. This may in fact increase the competitiveness of
Smooth, instead of reducing its competitiveness "Staake 2 :leisch, #$$%, p. 8.#'. ;y the
chemist making an e7act copy of Smooth< it is evident that he lacks creative ideas. The
company should ensure that the chemist only improve the uality of Virile without copying
Smooth. Should the chemist fail to achieve this, the company should relieve him of his duties.
=egards,
6ahmad
=eferences>
* ,e-atteis, ;. "#$$.'. From patent to profit: Secrets & strategies for successful
inventor. ?ew @ork> Suare Ane Bu)lishers, Inc.
* 1upta, V. 1ollakota, C 2 Srinivasan, =. "#$$/'. Business policy and strategic
management: Concepts and applications. ?ew ,elhi> B!I +earning Bvt. +td.
* Sanghera, B. "#$$%'. Fundamentals of effective program management: A process
approach based on the global standard. :ort +auderdale, :+.> D. =oss Bu)lishing.
* Staake, T. 2 :leisch, 0. "#$$%'. Countering counterfeit trade: Illicit market insights,
bestpractice strategies, and management toolbo!. ;erlin> Springer.
* Tur, D. "#$88'. "o# to rampage: $%% marketing techni&ues that #ill make you
#ealthy. ;altimore, -,.> Bu)lish6merica.