Week 1

Week 1

When I went to Law School, a working model a professor had for dispute resolution was from the old TV show "Leave It To Beaver." The upshot of this analysis was, how would Ward Cleaver resolve a dispute between his two sons, the Beaver and Wally.If you were Ward Cleaver, how would you resolve Bayer's dilemma?How should Bayer have initially responded ... both publically and privately? How should the various governments have responded throughout?(Should Ward Cleaver or Papa Smurf even be a "working model' for solving ethical, legal or political disputes?) |

|

| | RE: Ethics -- Isn't A Simple Approach Usually The 'Best!" | Jonathan Gruenebaum  | 5/7/2013 6:24:21 PM |

|

| Bayer was within their legal rights in threatening legal action to protect its patents and ethically correct in trying to protect a valuable asset (the patent) for its shareholders. From a business perspective however, Bayer should have fought this battle behind closed doors. |

|

| | RE: Ethics -- Isn't A Simple Approach Usually The 'Best!" | Kenneth Owens  | 5/7/2013 11:35:30 PM |

|

| * Are there situations in which a company, for the common good, must give up the economic advantage accorded by intellectual property laws? The short answer is no. In the scenario above Bayer acted correctly and the government also acted correctly.

The governments job is to look after the interest of the people while the other supports its stock holders.   * Should Bayer have followed its own credo more than it seemingly did?Yes, Bayer should have followed its credo. This move could have benefited Bayer in many ways! If we use 

the Tylenol tampering incident as an example, they were able to flip the negative of product being

poisoned into a positive. If Bayer followed their credo they could have gained advantage in the market

and created more brand loyalty.  * Was it unethical in threatening litigation to those who attempted to thwart its patent rights?No. I believe it...