Ethical and Legal Considerations Intellectual property and product safety

Business operations are deemed viable of they succeed in establishing conditions that guarantee safety for its product consumers. Specified standards are applied by business entities to attain such viability. These considerations are critical in product safety, intellectual property, and marketing in general. If a company or business entity violates any of the aspects mentioned, it stands a high risk being caught in a web of ethical and legal complications that might destroy it.

PhamaCARE finds itself in such a precarious predicament owing to its blatant violation of a number of legal and ethical standards. There were both ethical and legal problems that impacted on its clients and businesses. Investigating behavior is paramount in uncovering issues related to legal and ethical problems of any business entity. Pursuant to the scenario above, identify three (3) legal issues and problems PharmaCARE has in relation to marketing and advertising, intellectual property, and regulation of product safety.

Be sure to identify the law in these areas and the extent to which PharmaCARE violated the law. All business outfits need a strategy for marketing in order to succeed. Indeed, while some of the strategies used may be written, some businesses use unwritten strategic marketing plans. Embracing marketing ethics makes sure that all stakeholders remain in a balanced and sustainable association. When ethical standards are violated by a business, it hurts the relationship that exists with the consumers and other important stakeholders.

The drugs segment of business is even more sensitive because the products produced by such entities as PharmaCARE hold the potential to harm the consumer in significant ways if ethical and legal considerations are adhered to, to the letter and spirit. Owing to the dangers inherent in such products, international standards have been set to safeguard consumers and assist such companies to operate without too many challenges. These standards emphasize on the need to provide sufficient information about the product along with its pricing (Schlegelmilch, & Oberseder, 2010).

Any strategy that seeks to replace or circumvent these standards is one that is likely to cause a backlash among the product consumers because it is regarded deceptive to do so. PharmaCARE operated a business model that lacked any legal framework. It worked in disregard of any harmful effects that the drugs it produced had on the consumers. The marketing strategy was therefore unethical. Furthermore, the firm launched CompCARE under its name. Such a move was also in complete violation of ethical and legal considerations.

It overlooked the crime aspects associated with the marketing of such drugs and even went on to bribe doctors to create fictitious patients for the new entity. Al these made what the company did entirely unethical. It follows, therefore, that PharmaCARE engaged in violation of such marketing ethics and fairness in the treatment of the consumer. They were also blatantly dishonest. Moreover, it appears that the marketing efforts made by the company were only aimed at increasing profits at the expense of consumer health and well-being.

There were unethical behaviors in the running of the PharmaCARE's advertisements. The presentation of the product was not representative of what the drugs functionalities really were. The result was unforeseen effects on the unsuspecting consumer. This was a demonstration that the company cared little about observing acceptable ethical standards in the running of its businesses (Arnold, & Oakley, 2013.

In addition to the above flaws, the company did not take the drug through the proper legal and scientific sieves that have been set out by the relevant authorities before it made the drug available for use by consumers. Finally, their approach to advertising was also flawed, ethically. The advertisement seemed to mislead the patients who had little knowledge and did not enjoy any form of professional advice or guidance. PharmaCARE also breached intellectual property law. According to Arnold & Oakley (2013), intellectual property has to do with issues of copyright.

It is unethical when the patented owner of an idea or invention is not given due recognition when a product is fronted for purchase or show by another entity. Intellectual property rights are normally protected through a legal framework and specific laws and principles of law. These protections include patent laws, trademarks, and trade secrets. The PharmaCARE intellectual property can be pointed out in terms of the reformulation and innovation of the drug. It was nevertheless illegal as far as the observance of DFA standards is concerned.

Although the reformulation was intended to make use of AD23s gradual progression effect on Alzheimer's disease, there was no formal recognition or a subsidiary prescription trial before the success of the drug on the market. Moreover, the invention of the drug by John was viewed as inconvenient to the PharmaCARE establishment. The regulation of the product safety was also unethical. The company churned out and availed products for consumer use without due inspection by the relevant authorities. This means that the product safety was not guaranteed.

The company's action was in contradiction of the set standards and hence makes the drug unsafe for use by the public. With regard to AD23, the losses were found to have amounted to the loss of the lives of two hundred people and a heightened rate of heart attacks in the population. Argue for or against Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) marketing by drug companies. Provide support for your response. Current society seems to have given credence to direct marketing approaches by companies.

Nevertheless, according to Ventola (2011) points out that the relevance of these approaches is greatly undermined by the direct risks that the products pose on the targeted consumers. This is especially true when the products are of pharmaceutical nature. Issues to do with wrongful administration and quality suffice. FDA is under pressure t cope with the emerging challenges in its regulation of direct to consumer approaches because drug units could easily be transformed into the purely commercial outfits with little consideration for consumer safety and wellbeing.

Therefore, although there are arguments that DTC helps to avail drugs to the consumer easily and fast, there are heavy risks that may lead to paying very heavy prices. A case in perspective is PharmaCARE; the company provided misleading information about AD23 to the consumers. The drug had circumvented inspection procedures and availed to the consumer directly. The result of the DTC approach was the death of 200 patients and an increased rate of heart attack cases in the population.

It is evident that the company shifted its focus from the wellbeing of the consumer to how it could rake in more profit. It was a shift that led to their unethical conduct. Analyze the manner in which PharmaCARE used U.S. law to protect its own intellectual property AND if John has any claim to being the true "inventor" of AD23. Suggest at least three (3) ways the company could compensate John for the use of his intellectual property. PharmaCARE is a product of the US law.

It was created to safeguard it intellectual property. The organization existed under the guidance of international law and standards that informed the intellectual property law within the US. Although, typically PharmaCARE enjoyed protection by the law, the creation of CompCARE to operate under its wing complicated matters. It meant that although product developed was a new one, it was still under protection by PharmaCARE. Thus, CompCARE came into operation courtesy of the update of the already patented AD23.

Despite coming up with the product, John and his team of developers did not own the product. His efforts only amounted to the labor inputs of a hired contractor. This was reinforced by the fact that the research used was under common copyright. Nevertheless, John still deserves compensation to a limited extent. He can either be promoted to the status of a co-founder of AD23 after it has been formally accepted or simply promoted by PharmaCARE in terms of his career progression.

The profit that accrues from the sale of AD23 can be shared with him and his team of researchers. Summarize at least one (1) current example (within the past three (3) years) of intellectual property theft. Explain the facts and outcome if available. Sichuan Changhing Electric CO. found itself in an intellectual property theft case with Microsoft Cooperation. According to Tu (2013), the products were stolen from a company that was in charge of licensing, engineering outfit, an African manufacturer and an educational organization.

Although the reputation of Microsoft as a brand was not damaged significantly, the company still undertook a raft of measures to safeguard its interests. Analyze the potential product liability issues surrounding the death of John's wife and other potential litigants against PharmaCARE as a result of AD23. Be sure to explain product liability law and then answer the question specifically The death if John's wife is the result of negligence by PharmaCARE. Despite this incident, PharmaCARE continued marketing the product. It can.