Slashdot Mirror

To see a list of brands owned by Johnson & Johnson: http://www.jnj.com/product/brands/index.htm

Chances are you have heard of at least some of these products (e.g. Tylenol, KY, Rolaids... the list is long).

If you go to both homepages, J&J and Red Cross, I see a red cross on the Red Cross page but not on the J&J one. Even after a few clicks on the J&J page, not a single red cross. Yes I am sure one exists somewhere but their "Johnson & Johnson" signature is their brand logo. Plus I was always under the impression that a red cross was an international symbol for medicine. Why the fuss now?

Agreed. I have never seen a cross on a J&J product, though I'm sure my parents bought plenty of them. Just a signature. And, no, I could not tell you what color it is, but I would first guess light blue or black. I was also just on the J&J website and they had no crosses whatsoever.

We are responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well. We must be good citizens - support good works and charities and bear our fair share of taxes.

http://www.jnj.com/contact_us

I think that JnJ has a decent complaint:

http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20070809_081717.h tm

The thing is, where exactly is the red cross J+J mark used? I don't see it on their website, www.jnj.com. I don't see it on a few J+J products I looked at in my bathroom cabinet, either. Their primary mark is Johnson + Johnson in a cursive script. The only thing remotely close to a block letter 'cross' (or 'plus') symbol is the '+' between 'Johnson' and 'Johnson', and it doesn't resemble the Red Cross mark at all and I have never seen the J+J '+' by itself.

On December 20, 1999, the Commission proposed new Regulation FD - for "fair disclosure" - to combat selective disclosure. Selective disclosure occurs when issuers release material nonpublic information about a company to selected persons, such as securities analysts or institutional investors, before disclosing the information to the general public. This practice undermines the integrity of the securities markets and reduces investor confidence in the fairness of those markets. Selective disclosure also may create conflicts of interests for securities analysts, who may have an incentive to avoid making negative statements about an issuer for fear of losing their access to selectively disclosed information.

A publically traded corporation is by law, required to uphold the interests of the shareholders foremost, above anything else.

Really? Izzat so?

Then Johnson & Johnson's been violating the law since 1943.

A publically traded corporation is by law, required to uphold the interests of the shareholders foremost, above anything else.

Really? Izzat so?

Then Johnson & Johnson's been violating the law since 1943.

Companies are now beholden ONLY to stockholders.

Not necessarily.

At least one company puts the stockholders LAST in the priority list.

Unfortunately, you're showing your ignorance. Let me walk you through it:

Careful there. You might find yourself confused with the kettle, pot.

A Business' sole goal is to maximize profit for its shareholders, and nothing else.

False.

The goal that a business must keep as a top-level goal is to maximize shareholder value. This is not the same as "this quarter's profit" or even "profit" over any time frame (though they eventually become related).

Further, many companies interpret "shareholder value" as stock value over the long-term, which is often at odds with actions that would increase stock value in the short-term.

As a conclusive counter-example, check out Johnson & Johnson's credo. Shareholder value is fourth on that list and it's been below other goals for the past 60 years.

Regards,
Ross

Public ownership means the corporate executives have a duty to the shareholders to maximize their value (i.e. keep the stock price high).

That's simplistic, and if you understood the real, more complex answer, you'd realize how deeply you misunderstand what companies must do.

There are plenty of companies who put other interests above the stockholder's interests. As long as these other interests are clearly described to potential shareholders (usually in the corporate charter, the corporate bylaws and mentioned/described in financial statements), the investors (owners) can pound sand.

Even if they're making money, are they making enough money? Are they making the right strategic decisions? The shareholders invested a ton of capital in Novell, are the executives making the best use of it?

With some broad caveats, it's not their call. The shareholder's decision is to invest or to withdraw investment with rare "confidence/no confidence" votes decided by an actual majority of outstanding share (not the 5% piping up here). Most shareholder lawsuits are about fraud or are part of larger power plays. Very few have to do with the quality of management and even fewer of those end up winning.

A lot of people think that because shareholders are owners that all decisions must be made in accordance with shareholder desires. Management has been hired to fulfill one or more promises to various groups, those promises being spelled out in the corporate charter. If short-term shareholder gain is in the charter, then managment had better step up. The long-term interests of shareholders is much more common and much tougher to nail down to a few decisions in the here and now.

Novell management will be able to argue quite convincingly that the proposals being mentioned here are not in the long term interest of Novell shareholders, but only in the interest of a few shareholders who wish to sell their stake. Acting in the interest of owners wishing to sell against the long term interest of all owners is the kind of behavior that will get you in very deep trouble very quickly.

Regards,
Ross

A public traded company, must (yes must) maximize the profit of its shareholders.

False. Even without clarifying your statement to include "legal profit", other concerns can be placed above the interests of the shareholders as long as they are clearly communicated (usually in the bylaws of the corporate charter).

Just because most (almost all) companies choose to put profit above all other concerns doesn't mean that all companies do. Or should.

Regards,
Ross

MOD PARENT UP

A very good reference. Liposomes (also a kind of nanoparticle) carrying cancer drugs have already been approved for use in the clinic. To my knowledge, none of the liposome are as specifically targeted as the dendrimers discussed in the article, but they still have some cancer-specificity due to their size (the blood vessels in tumors tend to be immature and leaky, thus allowing the liposomes to cross into cancerous tissue more easily than normal tissue). See: http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20050207_122707.h tm
http://www.alza.com/alza/pr_ALZA__S_CAELYX__Approv ed_in_Canada_for_Treatment_of_Advanced_

I currently work for Disney, so I'll post anonymously.

Of course - management's job isn't to produce quality products, it's all about making money for the shareholders. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. If they ever lose track of that, they get fired.

In a word: horseshit. In a few words: far too simplistic to have any meaning.

If you focus on short term profits at the expense of long term vision long enough, it won't take long before you won't have short term profits to worry about. Sadly, Disney management has taken your advice, and basically turned into a "rent collection organization" at the expense of creating amazing worlds, stories, and characters.

As an aside, the number of companies whose management disagrees with your assessment and have enormously benefitted when they didn't bring more money to the shareholders is long, and occasionally growing. (Johnson & Johnson "The Tylenol Crisis"; Merck gave away a drug to eliminate river blindness, and took streptomycin to Japan to eliminate tuberculosis knowing that they would not make a profit (they are currently the largest and most trusted pharm company in Japan)).

My money is always on the long term thinker. I know that no matter what the quarterly returns say, the long term company has a better chance of being relevant in 5, 10, 50 years, or more.

Also, if a company states in it's bylaws that it will put shareholder interests secondary to other interests (J&J's credo is a legal part of the company) then all people who buy shares are expected to realize that the company will make decisions that may be contrary to stockholder interests.

Companies that put shareholder interests above all other interests are bankrupt from the get-go. Sadly, Disney is mostly one of those companies. There are still organizations of people with more vision within the company, but they're gradually being weeded out in the mantra of efficiency that I hear on a daily basis.

Why do you think they aren't?

For instance:
"In response to floods that caused extensive damage and loss of life in the Philippines during December, 2004, Johnson & Johnson made a donation of two disaster relief modules and over 2,000 hygiene kits to partner organizations in that country. In addition, a donation was made by Johnson & Johnson to support the efforts of local disaster relief groups"

"In response to the powerful earthquake that rocked southeastern Iran on December 26, 2003, killing more than 30,000 people and leaving some 100,000 people homeless, Johnson & Johnson contributed product modules including sutures, casting & bracing materials and pain relief products."

"Johnson & Johnson has supplied ravaged areas with Disaster Relief Modules, containing much needed medical supplies. In 2002, these modules were sent to Afghanistan for earthquake relief, as well as to Kentucky for flood relief and to the Congo to aid recovery after a volcano eruption."

Didn't Sony eventually spread their cheeks, though? Now that Forgent is lubed with Sony's money, they'll slip into the cheeks of the others, all the easier.

Actually I mentioned that at the end of the original post. They bent over and took it like it was bad hentai or something. We're all truly fucked now.

I think it's time to buy stock in the company that makes KY Jelly

You mean Johnson & Johnson? Their stock looks like shit and they've got JPEGs on their site....they're going down!

Who are they going to sue next? Johnson and Johnson for their AIM Toothpaste? Or should J&J be suing AOL instead?