Slashdot Mirror
The Short Arm of the Law
mindbrane writes "CNN takes a look at when companies are too big for the legal system to handle. Quoting: 'Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders. ... So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. ... As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.' IBM may have cast the mold for this sort of thing in its 1970s antitrust case, but the recurrence of similar cases speaks to ongoing concerns for legal systems."
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Too bad no one listened to him.
Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
You don't need step #4.
And is a cop-out by prosecutors. Crimes are committed by individual people and that is who should be prosecuted for them. And no, there is no shield, exemption, or veil protecting employees of a corporation against prosecution for crimes they commit on the job.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Maybe they should rewrite the rules for big pharma so that if they're convicted of doing something outrageously illegal, the patents they own which were involved in the crime become public domain. That way, they will not risk a damn thing when it comes to marketing and promotion of their products, and there's no way that suing a company will screw up the nation's health care system.
By letting Pfizer get away with this the US government has set an example. There is no reason to obey the law if you have enough tentacles. They could have chosen the high-road and smacked them down and then out of the rubble a new generation of companies would have emerged that would have had reason to obey the law. No, instead corruption is institutionalized.
Shh.
Can I incorporate myself? I was born a human and in our society we're second class citizens, let's look at some facts:
- We have to pay tax
- We have to follow the local laws
- We have to deal with issues like morality and ethnics
- We are second class citizens in terms of political power (even as a group)
Also, if I put on enough weight can I become "too big to fail?"
While you're downsizing step #4, you could also outsource step #3.
Is this just the latest application of the Golden Rule? He who has the gold makes the rules...
However many people this will help in the short term, the precedent this has set and it's long-term implications are incredibly dangerous.
...which is a sign of a failed state. Regulatory Capture is when government agencies become run primarily for the special interests they are supposed to regulate.
This CNN article shows how corporations can become too big to punish (which is similar to the oft cited "too big to fail"). The same conditions which put monopolistic corps and cartels beyond market accountability (lack of competition for those at the top of an industry) probably add to the effect of being "too big to nail" at the same time.
Corporatism has emerged in our society and become monopolistic and wildly out of control. The best remedy we may have is stringent application of antitrust law (break 'em up), although other measures (such as limiting their spending and ties with the media) will probably be necessary as well.
And also: Jennifer Government, by Max Berry.
--Obyron
I don't think we need to worry about the Fed causing job loss by doing anything to Pfizer. Pfizer is doing a great job by themselves. Just ask the former employees of Park-Davis, Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia, Upjohn, Searle, Wyeth and too many to mention small bio-techs which were dissolved on acquisition. For chemists, Pfizer is a job loss machine.
Should clarify the mind and make directors / VPs realise that they must take responsibility for the organisations they run id they want to keep earning the big bucks.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
While one may not agree with the particulars, this seems like a pretty standard case of prosecutorial discretion. The reality of the law is that the maximum penalty prescribed by law - and sometimes even the minimum penalty prescribed by law - is not appropriate for the crime committed. And prosecutors plead out criminals for sentences less than those allowed by law all the time.
And in this case, some sales agents in the army of sales agents misrepresented one product out of an arsenal of products. Ok? Of course not. Deserving of a big fine, and probably one larger than the company got? Sure.
But cutting off access to Medicare/Medicaid for the entire company, even if it is an available legal penalty, is not the appropriate legal penalty in this case.
The real problems here are that:
1) The law is not appropriate. A better penalty would be loss of patent protection on a lucrative drug, or 10x profits made on the drug that was mis-marketed.
2) Those selling drugs in a manner that can harm patients are not personally liable for their actions. If your doctor prescribes you a drug that they should know might harm or kill you, they are liable. And if a pharma rep orchestrates or participates in a sales campaign designed to hide the hazards of a drug, they should also be personally liable. If all the pharma reps knew that off-label marketing got 30 days in jail the practice would be curbed considerably.
3) Corporations are designed to separate business assets and actions from personal assets and actions. There is value to this. But using shell corporations to protect parent corporations seems to have gotten a bit crazy.
One and two could be fixed by competent legislation. Three is probably a ship that has sailed.
paintball
Simply create new stock in the company that is owned by the government. The new stock would be a significant fraction of existing stock even to a multiple of the current existing public stock.
1) This potential loss/shock to stock holders would have the incentive to make stock holders pay attention and keep the company from violating laws
2) Government would be a stock holder and able to provide direction and observation
3) Government would eventually be able to sell the stock "release from jail" and realize a profit
Minor offenses less than 100% of stock is newly created as government stock
Major offenses 101% of current stock is newly created at government stock, instantly making the government the majority share holder and causing 50% loss to current stock holders.
Even higher multiples 200% etc for more grievous actions.
This does not hurt employees, customers or any other corporate relations. It directly damages share holders and executives who are responsible for company behavior . It encourages proper oversight and control. The government eventually gets some money back for enforcement.
If we treat Corporations as persons in any context, they must be treated as persons in every context.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
The best remedy we may have is stringent application of antitrust law (break 'em up)
The problem in this case stems directly from pro-trust law. Without patents, there wouldn't be a problem with kicking Pfizer out of Medicare (nor would they wield monopoly-level revenue that underlies issues here ranging from buying doctors to making the legal system its bitch).
There are much better, and vastly more efficient, ways to pay for research than these monopoly rights whose side effects are damaging to the free market, the political system and the legal system all at the same time.
Slow down there, skipper. You're under the misapprehension that Pfizer exists to make pharmaceuticals. Pfizer exists to make profit with advertising, and they happen to sell pharmaceuticals.
Especially if you're a private military contractor in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xT1DGJMoQ
DynCorp was operating like that in South America throughout the 1990s. These private military contractors are not held accountable, which is why they're used. They can get away with things the military would have a hard tyme getting away with. And I bet that's one reason Bush pushed to privatize the military. About the only way these corporations can be held accountable is via the Alien Tort Claims Act, which Bush tried to get rid of.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
>Without patents, there wouldn't be a problem with kicking Pfizer out of Medicare
In that case, it sounds like a better way of achieving justice would be to seize their patent assets (some or all) and then nullify them.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
SCOTUS has never reached the decision that corporations are "deserving" of human rights. A passing remark included by a court reporter in the case of Santa Clara County vs Southern Railroad is usually the basis for that belief. It is, frankly speaking, one of the most harmful beliefs in modern law.
Patents didn't keep the US from cashing in Bayer's patent for the Anthrax cure. Or, rather, give them the hint that they will invalidate it due to "national emergency" if they didn't offer the antidote at the US government mandated price.
Why's that impossible with Pfizer?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why shareholders aren't punished for the actions of a corporation is completely beyond me.
The problem with that is that you're penalizing all stockholders, even those who try to clean up the corporation. Or are you one of those who believes in guilt by association? One of the most effective ways to change corporations today is via stockholder activism. Sure investors can use socially responsible investing but that's what shareholder activism is. Of course my way, corporate charter revocation also hurts activist investors.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yeah, what happened to men like John Adams?
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
I have a better solution, one that provides better self regulation...
Corporate Death Penalty.
Corporations are a creation of the state, and exist only under permission of the state. The solution for dealing with such abuse of laws is to have the state dissolve the corporation and auction all the assets, and release all "intellectual property" back to the public as public domain.
If we actually enforced corporate death penalty, the company's owners (stock holders) would be much more careful about how the company they own is operated.
No company is too big to fail, and failure is the only alternative we have. The whole idea that failure is not an option is itself a really bad idea.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.