Ethics Qs

Legal Ethics • Are there situations in which a company, for the common good, must give up the economic advantage accorded by intellectual property laws? During a crisis situation, the common good can trump an intellectual property law. The threat of anthrax was at an all-time high, and though Bayer was producing as much as it could, it could not meet the demand and thus the price for their drug was artificially inflated.

Under such circumstances, with a threat that impacts national security, I believe that the common good should come before intellectual property law. • Should Bayer have followed its own credo more than it seemingly did? Yes, of course. Although there goal is to maximize profit, it also needs to be a sustainable company. With its past history, sharing its intellectual property in a time of crisis could offer the company much needed intangible assets.

The company could have worked with outside partners to ensure demand was met at a reasonable market price. • Was it unethical in threatening litigation to those who attempted to thwart its patent rights? It was illegal, but it could be considered unethical. Especially since their mission statement includes provisions for the common good and helping people. Therefore their threats violated basic human decency in a time of crisis.

• And was the United States and Canada unethical in using their governmental actions in ignoring patent law to gain a negotiating edge in getting the price of Cipro lowered during the crisis? No, I do not believe that the U.S. And Canada acted unethically in this time of crisis. Their role is to serve the public's good, not to protect company profits; especially in a time of crisis. Therefore, it would have been unethical not to.