Apricot.com is major software developer which licenses software to be employed over the internet. One of its programs, named Match, is a search engine which searches personal ads on internet and provides a match for users for potential dates and probable marriage partners. Nolan Bates subscribes to Match software program from Apricot.com. The license duration is 5 years, with the license fee of $200 per month. For each subscriber, Apricot.com creates a separate webpage which shows photos of the subscriber and personal data. Bates posts photo of himself with his mother, with caption “Male, 30 years old, lives with mother, likes quiet nights at home.” Bates licenses Apricot.com Match software and uses it 12 hours each day, searching for his internet match. Bates doesn’t pay Apricot.com the needed monthly licensing fee for any of the 3 months he employs the software. After using the match software but refusing to pay Apricot.com its licensing fee, Apricot .com activates disabling bug in the software and disables the Match software on Bate’s computer. Apricot.com does this with no warning to Bates. It then sends the letter to Bates stating. “Loser, the license is cancelled!” Bates sues Apricot.com for disabling Match software program.

1. Who wins?

2. Did Bates act ethically?

3. Did Apricot.com act ethically?