Synchronys' SoftRAM "placebo software" fraud.

Goals for the activity:
To sharpen skills in rhetorical analysis and learn some consequences of a failure in professional ethics.

Knowledge / skills / attitudes to be developed (behavioral objectives):
After completing this activity successfully students should be able to:

• describe what the SoftRAM product was supposed to do.
• describe what different people said/wrote about SoftRAM.
• recall and apply definition of fraud.
• recall that people publish contradictory opinions about a piece of software.
• suggest possible reasons for people's published statements.
• describe what evidence is provided for different statements.
• recognize the (hidden?) goals of a piece of writing.
• evaluate evidence.
• experience how new data changes the situation.
• recall the consequences for the producer of SoftRAM.
• extrapolate prospects for a company that has a bad product and/or publicity.
• suggest ways to prevent similar occurrences.

Procedure:

1. Handout the three worksheets and articles as a homework assignment to be completed and handed in for in the next class. [Alternatively give URL of student version of activity.]
2. Starting with the first article and worksheet:
   • Ask each student to share their explanation of the case (so far) with a neighbor. Discuss differences and reasons. In classes greater than 20 compare in groups of four.
   • Plenary: each group of four describes the different models they have developed.
   • Record on board: fraud or bug or placebo or misunderstanding or misrepresentation without gain...
3. Turn to second worksheet.
   • Ask students to answer questions alone. Think-pair-square-share.
     Conclude => Board
     
   • Now we are more certain that this is a case of fraud.
     
   • Still might be a bug.
     
   • Always Seek Knowledge (ASK).
   • Ask: "any questions"
   • Expect/elicit response: "What happened next/Any more other data?"
4. Turn to the third web page and worksheet.
   Think-pair-share.
   Conclusion to be posted on the board.
   
   • Page is condemning non-electronic media
     
   • Favorable reviews of fake software?
     
5. Expect/elicit a request for "what happened?" Refer to the last two web pages showing what the company did, what happened, and how it recovered. Three minute pause -- "Think about what you've done and read, quietly, and note any questions"
   Ask: "Any questions?"
   
6. If time, use guided discussion regarding the FTC settlement, and the subsequent marketing efforts of the company.
   
7. Summary:
   In software:
   
   1. Details: Need to search out detailed information to make a good diagnosis.
      
   2. Critical: Take a critical attitude to reports and claims.
      
   3. Software: No trust => No sale.
      
   4. Reputation: Competing software companies need a clean reputation.

Assessing outcomes:
After completing stage:

1. Student should recognize that a system can appear to be working to some people and not to others. Will have worked out at least one explanation for the conflicting evidence: fraud, bug, or psychology.
2. Aware that different explanations are possible and consistent (so far).
3. Recalls that New data removes some explanations, adds explanations.
4. Increased tendency to seek data.
5. Can recall and describe the problems suffered by a software company with a bad product once it gets reported in the media.
6. Should be able to describe a similar hypothetical or real case of a company selling software that is not good and so losing customer trust and then sales.

Additional remarks:

1. Earlier worksheets have a lower level of cognitive skill.
2. With computer science students you can ask more pointed questions about the possibilities of an error in the code or perhaps a wrong version being distributed. Also ask questions to differentiate "virtual memory" from "data compression."

Author contact information:
Dr. Richard J Botting
Phone: (909) 880-5327
Email: rbotting@wiley.csusb.edu
Home Page: http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick