Forward Software Essay

frontward Software, Inc. is a parcel company potentially facing a copyright infringement constabulary hold. The spreadsheet harvest-feast beforehand sells includes an optional menu navigation remains identical to that of think Software, the original developer of the menu system. transports spreadsheet product present-day(prenominal)ly dominates the market. centralise Software is currently suing a smaller software company that has in any oddball used this identical menu system in their spreadsheet software.It is believed that based on the endpoint of this pending lawsuit, Forward Software, Inc. may overly be sued. Forward has to decide between extending Focus an unrequested solving prior to the pending trials conclusion or gestateing for the out(a)come and possibly facing litigation. To do this, Forward unavoidably to get hold the optimal decision scheme to take and how much the scheme is evaluate to apostrophize. The hiring of an outside law secure that ma y be suitable to provide a prevision of the companys success in realisening a trial must also be dateed, as well as the maximum that should be paid for that service. Savings associated with hiring the fast(a) need to be determined and analysis of the high hat decision scheme will also need to be done.Based on our analysis, the best system is to wait until the conclusion of the pending lawsuit. If Focus wins that lawsuit and files a lawsuit against Forward, Forward should utilize the law sign of the zodiac to conduct the proposed necessitate for the lawsuit. Based on the law trustworthys findings (predicted win, predicted loss, cant predict) Forward will have to decide to go to trial or settle out of court. The results show that unless the firm can make the prediction that Focus would likely win the lawsuit, Focus should settle out of court. The evaluate costs of this strategy range between $9 $12.8 million dollars. This includes called costs associated with hiring th e firm. The maximum count that should be paid for hiring the firm is $1.14 million. If the firm could accurately predict the outcome of the Forward versus Focus case, Forward could transmit to save $2.4 million.A decision tree was constructed to determine the best strategy for Forward. This approach was chosen as at that place were many decisions and states of nature to consider and chronology was important. The decision tree allowed for evaluation in a chronological pattern. In determining the optimal strategy, analysis was performed to determine if it is best to settle at present or wait on the verdict of a pending trial, whether to hire or not hire a law firm if sued, and also to determine the look upon of information that could be provided. Our analysis is as follows-Settle flat or Wait? The optimal strategy indicates that it best is to wait until the outcome of the pending trial. Following the optimal strategy, there is a hazard of .64 that Focus will not have to make a ny payout, this is based super on waiting on the outcome of the trial as there is a .60 probability that Focus will lose and not get a lawsuit. As the bulk of the non-payout probability is based on the out come of the current Focus case, this event was included in a sensitivity analysis of the overall strategy.The analysis was performed to assess how sensitive the strategy is to changes in the probability of Focus winning its pending lawsuit (0-1) the probability of Forward winning a suit if brought (0-1) the maximum hold offed settlement if sued (+/-50%) the maximum expected judgment (+/-50%) and the cost of the firms enquiry prediction (+/-100%). The torpedo graph below shows that the optimal path is influenced more or less highly by the probability of 1) Focus winning the pending suit and 2) the probability of Forward winning if sued. Of particular importance is the increase in cost (expected value) based on changes in the probability of the outcome of the pending Focus vs. D iscount Software trial. The increase in expected cost to over $6 million indicates that the decision to wait or offer settlement prior to the pending suits outcome changed.To determine the point at which the strategy changed base on the probability of the current suits outcome, a second sensitivity analysis was performed pore on this event. The strategy region chart below indicates that the decision to wait or settle now changes if there is a chance prominent than 67% that Focus will win its pending suit. As there is currently only a 40% chance given to Focus winning its pending trial, the recommended strategy of waiting for the outcome should be followed. (Though Forward should confirm the probabilities assigned to this event.)Do or Dont utilise a Firm? Should surface-to-air missile hire this law firm to do a study for the lawsuit and what is the maximum amount of money Sam should pay for the service? Important considerations in determining whether to hire the firm include the v alue of the information the firm can provide and the cost for this information. To determine the value of the information provided by the firm, expected costs of qualification the decision with and without the firms (free) information must be compared. Without the law firms analysis, Forwards expected cost is $12.1 million. With the firms analysis, Forwards expected cost is reduced to $10.96 million. (This gens assumes the information is provided for free.) The difference in the expected cost with and without the information is $1.14 million. This is the value of the information the firm can provide and is also the maximum amount Forward should pay for the service.If the law firm could accurately predict the outcome of the Forward versus Focus case, how much money can he expect to save? If the firm was able to accurately predict a win or loss, this would be considered perfect information. The expected cost in this case is $9.7 million. The difference between this expected cost and the expected cost of exercise without the firms perfect information ($12.1 million) is $2.4 million. This is the amount Forward could expect to save if the firm was able to accurately predict the outcome of the Forward versus Focus case.