Top Google Executives Approved Illegal Drug Ads

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top Google Executives Approved Illegal Drug Ads

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 26, 2012 @05:12AM from the regulations-trump-free-choice dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "PC Magazine reports that the U.S. government used convicted con artist David Whitaker, owner of an online business selling steroids and human growth hormone to U.S. consumers, to help federal agents in a sting operation against Google when he began advertising with Google with advertisements that included the statement 'no prescription needed,' clearly violating U.S. laws. Google's settlement with the U.S. government for $500 million blamed AdWords sales by Canadian pharmacies, who allegedly were selling drugs to U.S. consumers. 'We banned the advertising of prescription drugs in the U.S. by Canadian pharmacies some time ago,' Google said then. 'However, it's obvious with hindsight that we shouldn't have allowed these ads on Google in the first place.' Peter Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting, claims that chief executive Larry Page had personal knowledge of the operation, as did Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive who now is the chief operating officer for Facebook. In 2009 Google started requiring online pharmacy advertisers to be certified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's Verified Internet Pharmacy Practices Sites program and hired an outside company to detect pharmacy advertisers exploiting flaws in the Google's screening systems."

287 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

meowmix by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:16 · Score: 0

And the NAOBPVIPPS rears its ugly head again
500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:16 · Score: 1

Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
1. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
  500 million is petty chump change for the US federal government. You could define the Planck time in terms of how long 500 million dollars would keep the US government in operation.
  
  The whole thing is stupid anyway. Good drug dealers don't deliver ads to your browser. They use networks of trust.
  
  Like all such restrictions on what consenting adults do, these laws are a sort of IQ test -- the dumb ones get caught. The smart ones? Unless you participate you never even know they are there. This overuse of police power and regulatory authority breeds smarter dealers who are harder to catch just like what overuse of antibiotics does to staph.
  
  Seriously some of you really think all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? Every day you get in your car and drive to work I guarantee you, other drivers around you are high on something, carrying something, transporting something, about to sell something. This foolishness just makes them hide it, that's all.
2. Re:500 million?? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
  I wonder whether government computers will continue to get quality search results from Google, seeing as Google has now lost some money to operate their very demanding data centers... ;)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:500 million?? by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-26 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Have to agree. Sting? Google? They could have just told them. If the government wants to steal there money and ours, I would prefer plain old taxes. No speed traps, crazy fines in some cities that will get everyone about once a year, etc. Sometimes things get past the Mexican border too. Why should Google do their job anyhow?
  I know Google has a lot of money, but a $500,000 fine is plain theft. Has the government stopped drugs coming in thru Mexico? Maybe they should be fined for that. It's all silly.
4. Re:500 million?? by alexborges · 2012-01-26 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Its excrutiating, really, how governments will go to great lenghts to stop people from fucking themselves up willingly. I just pray that the .gov stops this nonsense.
  
  --
  NO SIG
5. Re:500 million?? by Synerg1y · 2012-01-26 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be a lot more worried about google saying they've had enough and taking their business off shore, but hopefully we're still a ways from that happening...
6. Re:500 million?? by Beelzebud · 2012-01-26 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  It's not theft at all. Break the rules, pay the fines. Get caught smuggling drugs from Mexico, go to jail. I'd say Google got off lightly compared to actual citizens.
7. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I wonder whether government computers will continue to get quality search results from Google, seeing as Google has now lost some money to operate their very demanding data centers... ;)
  All the government operated computers I use already redirect www.google.com to www.baidu.com and www.yandex.com.
  Ever since we install that Symantec suite, things just haven't been the same ...
8. Re:500 million?? by shaitand · 2012-01-26 05:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Agreed, no fees for drivers licenses and plates and marriage licenses. No tolls or other charges. All this crap is just a way to avoid using the tax system to pay for government services.
  Its made to SOUND fair, the people using the service pay the fee, but if you are pulling in a few billion a year its far more preferable to pay a $50 fee for your license plate* than to pay your fair share of the cost to provide everyone with plates under the progressive tax system. Who pays the difference between your million dollar fair share of that cost and the $50 you paid instead? The single mother of four whose kids went hungry last night, she works in a factory owned by the billionaire.
  Because nobody's time is worth billions. Those billions represent the labor of millions of fellow citizens and those citizens needed millions of license plates in order to produce those billions. The guy who ends up with the billions should pay for the license plates it represents, not the fellow citizens who did the work.
  *Analogy is slightly flawed since license plates exist primarily for the purpose of systematically charging fees and really should be gotten rid of.
9. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it is easier, and SAFER, than going agains the drug cartels, meth, heroin trafickers, the cocain business and such.
10. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Well put, you'd think they would have other interests than stopping people from making their own choices about what they want to fuck themselves up with.
11. Re:500 million?? by icebraining · 2012-01-26 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Google wasn't actually smuggling drugs.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
12. Re:500 million?? by icebraining · 2012-01-26 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what's happening here, though. They're mostly protecting the business of US drug companies. Remember these are 'prescription drugs', not banned drugs.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
13. Re:500 million?? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-26 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  they were linking to it!
  and if you're been breathing at all during the last few years, you know that if you LINK to things, its the same as DOING those things.
  you know what I'm talking about.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
14. Re:500 million?? by darth+dickinson · 2012-01-26 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Who gets to define "fair share"?
15. Re:500 million?? by fluffy99 · 2012-01-26 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
  500 million is petty chump change for the US federal government. You could define the Planck time in terms of how long 500 million dollars would keep the US government in operation.
  500 million is a huge windfall for the small agency that conducted the sting. Unfortunately it gives them the resources to setup and entrap other large companies. This happens all the time. Another example is the Michigan State agency that figured out how to go after people buying cigarettes over the internet and not paying state taxes - they got enough cash from the first round of lawsuits to triple the number of people working in that dept.
  If you read the article, it details just how much effort the govt put into convincing and tricking Google execs into accepting the ads. It's important to note that Google initially refused the ads entirely until they changed the website so that you had to contact the company directly (which makes the website an advertisement for services and not a store, btw). Then the feds had to keep nagging and begging to get the ads released in the US. This is a classic case of entrapment.
  I think Google just paid the $500 million because it's chump change to them and they want this to quietly go away as a long trial could have cost more in lawyers fees and damage to their reputation..
  Is the next target going to be eBay because they knowingly allow counterfeit items to be sold? They've already tried zinging them for this before.
16. Re:500 million?? by shaitand · 2012-01-26 07:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Currently that would be the IRS and congress.
17. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  What in god's name are you blathering about?
18. Re:500 million?? by geekoid · 2012-01-26 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  " all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? "
  of course it doesn't. It has been shown over and over again.
  The effect and impact varies depending on implementation
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
19. Re:500 million?? by geekoid · 2012-01-26 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I do.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
20. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  They were taking money from them too.
21. Re:500 million?? by shaitand · 2012-01-26 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  "If the government wants to steal there money and ours, I would prefer plain old taxes. No speed traps, crazy fines.. etc"
  I was responding to this. The rest should be obvious.
22. Re:500 million?? by Hentes · 2012-01-26 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  Correction: one of their users linked to it.
23. Re:500 million?? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-26 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually if you look at our history the times of the highest growth was when the top tax rate was 70% or above which makes perfect sense if you think about it. you see when you have a tax rate that high for the uber rich if they sit on the money then they don't sit on the money, they invest it instead since there was all these provisions that lowered their tax rates if they used the money to increase productivity. Now they simply set it overseas thanks to being able to electronically send it anywhere in a nanosecond or just dodge the taxes all together like the double dutch and Irish tax scams. For a good read on the subject i'd suggest this article where the author lays it out clearly and concisely and puts that 'job creators need lower taxes' myth to bed. to see what the lowest taxes on the top 1% in the history of our country has done for us follow it up with this article which again lays out the facts and shows if lower taxes on the wealthy were to actually create jobs they sure as fuck aren't being created here.
  in the end its not about fair or letting some fifth generation superrich continue the dynasty, its about a government doing what its supposed to do which is promote the welfare of the entire country and not just a specific class. As Buffet so accurately put it "We have had class warfare for years and we're winning" which all you have to do is look out a window at the boarded up homes and closed factories across this once great nation to know this is true.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
24. Re:500 million?? by shawn(at)fsu · 2012-01-26 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Why should we worry about google leaving if we fine it for breaking laws; citizens don't get the same luxury. We should in no way treat corporations better than people just because we're afraid of them leaving.
  
  --
  500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
25. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think Google just paid the $500 million because it's chump change to them
  Not so much that, as that industry isn't where the money is: Where google makes its money
26. Re:500 million?? by mcgrew · 2012-01-26 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Analogy is slightly flawed since license plates exist primarily for the purpose of systematically charging fees
  No, they're to make it so the cops can catch you easier. Hard to outrun a radio.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
27. Re:500 million?? by Sulphur · 2012-01-26 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Have to agree. Sting? Google? They could have just told them. If the government wants to steal there money and ours, I would prefer plain old taxes. No speed traps, crazy fines in some cities that will get everyone about once a year, etc. Sometimes things get past the Mexican border too. Why should Google do their job anyhow?
  I know Google has a lot of money, but a $500,000 fine is plain theft. Has the government stopped drugs coming in thru Mexico? Maybe they should be fined for that. It's all silly.
  Nice point : The Government can sue itself.
28. Re:500 million?? by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-26 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but rule did Google break? The person that put the add up getting around their system broke the rules.
29. Re:500 million?? by Spykk · 2012-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you read SOPA? That is the same as Larry Page sneaking into your house at night and injecting your children with steroids.
30. Re:500 million?? by Calibax · 2012-01-26 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  500 million is a huge windfall for the small agency that conducted the sting. Unfortunately it gives them the resources to setup and entrap other large companies.
  I think this should be "Fortunately". When I was in chemotherapy, my capecitabene tablets cost $1600 for a 2 week supply, or I could buy them from an on-line pharmacy for $650. It was tempting to save a bunch of money but I didn't because that medication was too important for me to trust an unknown supplier. One of other patients at my clinic told me that he ordered some from an online pharmacy in the US (or so he thought) and they arrived in an anonymous envelope from Guyana and with a size, shape and color different from the tablets supplied by local pharmacies. Fake? No way to tell for sure. But how many unsuspecting people are dying from pharmacies supplying fake medications? I don't know, nobody knows.
  Cutting off the ways to advertise these places is a good idea. You think it's "unfortunate" that Google was caught and you decry the methods used to go after Google. I think that this is a great way for the government to help save people's lives by enforcing reasonable and necessary laws.
31. Re:500 million?? by metacell · 2012-01-26 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  500 million is a huge windfall for the small agency that conducted the sting. Unfortunately it gives them the resources to setup and entrap other large companies. This happens all the time. Another example is the Michigan State agency that figured out how to go after people buying cigarettes over the internet and not paying state taxes - they got enough cash from the first round of lawsuits to triple the number of people working in that dept.
  You mean the settlement goes directly into the pockets of the agency that set them up? That's bizarre.
32. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  The mistake you're making is thinking that the "job creators" are the mega corporations, when in reality they are merging and "eliminating redundancies" as much as they can. When two corps merge, the number of jobs DECREASES.
  The real job creators are the small businesses, who instead are reamed from both ends. The large corps crush them because they (the corps) have the tax breaks and cost-reducing volume. The regular people are mislead by populist measures to look at small business owners as "rich" because they can make more than 250K a year, and flatten them with "fair share" taxes and red tape.
33. Re:500 million?? by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-26 12:45 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't go "directly in their pockets," but what happens is that the extra money is brought to the attention of the people who allocate budgets. Those people then allocate more to whoever brought in the money in the hope that there is more where that came from and extra staff will better be able suck that cash out of the economy and into the government budget without anything so politically unacceptable as "tax increases."
34. Re:500 million?? by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-26 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're obviously asking the question rhetorically, but I'll answer it anyway: It's because they have what we want, namely money and jobs. That leaves them in a stronger negotiating position with governments than solitary individuals have. Your response is that we should not give them what they want -- let them make good on their threats, right?
  The problem is that they do. In 2002 Apple made iMacs in California. In 2012 Apple makes iMacs in China. So you can call their bluff, but then you lose the jobs and the money.
  (Of course, you can also outsmart them -- by charging a sales tax on their products regardless of which country they make them in, which get paid by the corporations through margin reductions when customers aren't willing to pay as much for their products -- but then you get "progressives" wailing about how it's regressive while ignoring that the reason you're doing it is so that poor people won't lose their jobs.)
35. Re:500 million?? by mjwx · 2012-01-26 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, no fees for drivers licenses and plates and marriage licenses. No tolls or other charges. All this crap is just a way to avoid using the tax system to pay for government services.
  But who's fault is this.
  
  Joe Q Moron wants to pay less tax, so Senator J Greed obliges him. However JQ Moron also wants services from the government that he takes for granted. Reduced taxes mean that only _some_ of the services JQ Moron takes for granted can be funded from taxation, so they impose levies, fees and charges to ensure that Senator Greed can give JQ Moron a tax cut yet not get JQ Moron upset because the services he takes for granted are no longer there.
  
  The really sad part is, Joe Q Moron is the majority.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
36. Re:500 million?? by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-26 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Actually if you look at our history the times of the highest growth was when the top tax rate was 70% or above which makes perfect sense if you think about it.
  Well sure: Politicians cut taxes to stimulate the economy when times are tough and then raise them again after a recovery when things are going well, so they're always high during periods of high growth -- but the causal relation is the reverse of the one you want. Politicians set the tax rate inversely to the level of economic growth -- the state of the economy sets the tax rate rather than the other way around.
  On top of that, your assertion is a great example of how to lie with statistics. When, pray tell, was the period when tax rates were above 70% and economic growth was the highest? It was during the decades following World War II. Taxes were high to service the debt incurred during the war, and the economy was good because the US was one of the only first world countries that hadn't recently been bombed into the stone age and US competitiveness was thereby at an all time high.
  
  you see when you have a tax rate that high for the uber rich if they sit on the money then they don't sit on the money, they invest it instead since there was all these provisions that lowered their tax rates if they used the money to increase productivity.
  That doesn't even make sense. If you create a bunch of provisions (AKA "loopholes") to lower tax rates, you don't actually have a high tax rate at all, all you have is de facto fines for not conducting business in a particular way (namely in accordance with receiving the tax incentives).
  By contrast, higher effective tax rates reduce the incentive to earn more money for anyone (i.e. the rich) who isn't required to earn at least a minimum amount to buy food and pay the mortgage before they can go to the beach, because for the same amount of work or investment you see a smaller return after taxes. Why bust your hump operating a small business to beat the market by 2% if the government is going to take two thirds of it? Or, if you're a venture capitalist, every penny the government takes as taxes is a penny that isn't going to fund a new startup -- stock purchases aren't tax deductible.
  And that doesn't even consider the most insidious flaw in trying to make the rich pay more: Consider what it does to the Congressional Budget Office figures for any proposed bill. It causes any bill that reduces the disparity in income levels to create a hole in the federal budget: If a proposed bill would result in you earning $1 more and Warren Buffet earning $1 less, but you're paying 10% and he's paying 50%, Congress is now out $0.40 on the dollar. If you think any bill that might cause that to happen and thereby creates a 40% hole in the budget is going to make it out of committee, think again.
37. Re:500 million?? by strikethree · 2012-01-26 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  70% tax seems mighty repressive even if it is easily affordable. Seriously, the wealthy SHOULD pay more (total and as a percentage) in taxes than the peons do but 70% is obscene. Government services are NOT worth that much. People who are that wealthy can just buy a private army and be totally safe from anything short of a full fledged revolution or a government.
  Yes, taxes desperately need to be raised. 70% is not what it should be raised to. Top tax bracket currently is what, 35%? Perhaps 45% could be considered reasonable... but even then, I think that is on the extreme side.
  Let's stop teeter-tottering in this class warfare thing and just get along. Don't allow the balance to swing too wildly (70%vs15%) and things should go smoothly.
  strike
  (roflmao, CAPTCHA is harmony. these CAPTCHAs are poetic fairly frequently)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
38. Re:500 million?? by fluffy99 · 2012-01-26 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't go "directly in their pockets," but what happens is that the extra money is brought to the attention of the people who allocate budgets. Those people then allocate more to whoever brought in the money in the hope that there is more where that came from and extra staff will better be able suck that cash out of the economy and into the government budget without anything so politically unacceptable as "tax increases."
  Exactly. Also the reason such a large amount of the average law force is dedicated to catching speeders which generates income rather than putting murderers in jail which costs money.
39. Re:500 million?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think that this is a great way for the government to help save people's lives by enforcing reasonable and necessary laws.
  Except these laws aren't reasonable or necessary, and nobody's lives are being saved. And in the bargain, people like me who want to use steroids (and will do so, regardless of Unca Sam's loud mouthed opinion and greedy hands) are inconvenienced heavily, while those who dare to supply our market demand are incarcerated or heavily fined.
40. Re:500 million?? by shiftless · 2012-01-26 19:21 · Score: 2
  
  Actually if you look at our history the times of the highest growth was when the top tax rate was 70% or above which makes perfect sense if you think about it.
  Actually if you look at our history, the times of the highest growth was in the *1800s* when there was ZERO income tax, for ANYONE.
  The massive growth in the 1950s was due to our country being practically the only industrial power on the earth left standing after World War II. The growth was *in spite of* incredibly high taxation, not because of.
41. Re:500 million?? by metacell · 2012-01-26 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  Phew, the system is not as insane as I feared, then.
  But it's still pretty bad that they view fines as a source of income. It discourages the government agency from educating people about the law, or to prevent the offense from being committed in the first place. Prevention should be viewed as a better solution than punishment.
  It may even encourage legislators to write laws which are obscure and hard to follow...
42. Re:500 million?? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-26 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think you missed the point friend which was the taxes were ONLY that high if you just sat the money in the bank and did fuck all with it. once that money is hoarded it might as well be thrown in the fire, poof, for all the good it does. its out of effective circulation so its worthless to the economy.
  But you see there were all these provisions that meant if you actually invested that money into job growth your taxes wouldn't be that high. Add factory capacity? that money don't count. build a new plant, or upgrade the existing one? that money don't count. So you see friend it worked as an incentive to keep that money circulating throughout the economy thus helping fuel the engine of the country. Now did you know that more than 84% of the wealth of this ENTIRE country is in the hands of the top 6%? Picture that for a moment friend, you could literally put the holders of 84% of the wealth of the ENTIRE nation in your average HS gym and have seats left over, picture that for a moment. in the 1960s the CEOs made on average 30 times more than a line worker, now its over 400% and in many cases as high as 3000%.
  I would argue the reason this is is simply because you don't get penalized for hoarding anymore so hoard they do. this isn't about what's "fair' or punishing anyone, its about keeping the engine of the economy running and to do that, especially if they are gonna keep pushing this service and IP economy crap, well then you are gonna need a hell of a lot more of that money to end up in the hands of the poor and middle class who actually use their money to buy goods and services. do you HONESTLY think that 300 million Romney has sitting in an overseas account is helping the US economy one tiny bit? Rich people simply don't spend enough and without incentives to keep that money flowing they hoard. So now do you see why its required friend? no rich person was actually paying that 70% or during the time of FDR 90% but that penalty for hoarding made them invest that money back into the country and keep the engine running.
  Now the engine is cold and dead because you have an economy based on consumerism and the consumers don't have jobs and are flat busted. this is what happens when those at the top simply sit on the money. look how much of our business infrastructure is simply falling apart because they would rather that money go to CEO bonuses than investment in the system. in my area even though the town is 3 times the size it was then neither the DSL or cableco has moved a single inch in more than 18 years, not an inch. they just take their ever climbing profits and stick them in their pockets. Think of how much more business there would be for everyone if they had invested and competed so that internet was everywhere and affordable? Online shopping and entertainment and education, yet in my own building I have the cable to myself because nobody can afford the $119 a month for Internet thanks to their bundling and just the net alone is over $60 a month. The lack of investment is what is helping drive a stake through the heart of this country and i apologize about the length but this is something i feel strongly about. this is a way the government could get the engine fired back up without harebrained schemes like non profitable 'green tech' that ends up being sent over the border.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
43. Re:500 million?? by datavirtue · 2012-01-27 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  eBay reminds me of Chinatown.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
44. Re:500 million?? by Miamicanes · 2012-01-27 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  If they were made in India, they might differ in size, shape, or color because India doesn't recognize pharmaceutical patents for uses or chemicals -- it only recognizes patents for manufacturing processes. So, when somebody like Pfizer patents a drug in India, they get a patent on the specific process they use to manufacture the drug. If somebody comes up with a different way to make the same drug, they can patent it and sell the drug in India with complete legality. Cipla is notorious (among American/European pharma companies) for doing this. Because they have to come up with a different manufacturing process to legally avoid infringement, the alternate generics usually WILL be different in form (capsule vs tablet, color, taste, etc).
  In America, you can take an old drug like finasteride or doxepin (marketed for treating an enlarged prostate or depression), change the dosage slightly, then get a new 18-year patent for it as a treatment for hair loss or insomnia. In India, you'd be laughed at and get told to stick your silly American "use" patent where the sun doesn't shine.
  Indian drugs often taste a hell of a lot better than their American versions, because many American drugs are intentionally formulated to taste bad so kids won't "think they're candy". American atenolol is one specific example -- it tastes AWFUL. The Indian Atenolol I've been buying for the past couple of years, in contrast, is gelcoated.
  Would I buy imported chemotherapy drugs? No. There's too much at stake, over a relatively short period of time.
  I have no qualms about buying long-term "maintenance" drugs like atenolol, though, that are so cheap to make, it would almost cost more for them to try and convincingly fake it. The key is to sample new batches slowly, and be alert for any noticeable differences. The biggest real risk is that an unethical foreign supplier might repackage one drug as another of equivalent dosage, like repackaging propranolol as atenolol, or omeprazole as esomeprazole. The nice thing about drugs from India is that they come in foil packets instead of bottles, so substituting one for another requires larger-scale fraud than merely shipping 60 tablets from bottle #2 instead of bottle #1. The foil also keeps them fresh longer, so you can buy them a year's worth at a time and be through with it, instead of screwing around with refills every month and dealing with "we know you're going on vacation out of the country for two weeks, but your health insurance won't approve payment for the refill until 3 days from now" bullshit.
  I would be cautious of extended-release formulations, because it's definitely possible that the difference could matter. On the other hand, it could end up being better. Once again, if it's a drug you've been taking for years, and will be taking for years, after a while... you're going to have a pretty good idea whether your new supply is or is not the same. If anything, you're more likely to experience variations with drugs bought from somewhere like Wal Mart, where they might change suppliers every couple of months, and there's abundant evidence online that different generics ABSOLUTELY differ in their pharmacokinetics (google "bupropion budeprion teva" for one of the more infamous examples of this). Unlike American pharmacies, most online pharmacies will at least let you pick the brand as well as the drug itself.
  Insofar as Indian quality goes, keep in mind that probably 90% of the generic drugs at Wal Mart come from the same plants in India as the drugs sold online. The irony is that India actually has tighter requirements on generic bioequivalence than the FDA does (ie, the FDA allows up to 20% variance; I think it's 5% or less in India).
  Ultimately, it comes down to how much time and research you're willing to invest, and your tolerance for risk. If you're a MBTI xxxJ, online pharmacies probably aren't for you. The anxiety from the abstract risk and fear of disobeying authority will kill you. If you're a MBTI xNTP who can explain a drug's pharmacokinetics and metabolization path better than your own doctor can, online pharmacies are a gift from ${deity}.
45. Re:500 million?? by shaitand · 2012-01-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Joe Q Moron who is the majority really isn't the problem. John Q. Goldenturd is the problem and the senator is really cutting taxes for him not Joe. John Q. Goldenturd has more money than thousands or even millions of Joes and in the process of getting that money he consumes thousands or millions of times the government resources that Joe does.
  You could cut taxes to zero for the 99% and still not be able to tax the goldenturds enough to prevent their wealth from growing or have an impact on more than paper. The real secret is to stop taxing income and start taxing entrenched global wealth. Joe doesn't have any wealth, even if he "owns" his home goldenturds bank actually owns it. Goldenturd systematically makes all his income invisible via continuous floating using things like 1031 exchanges.
Once you go public... by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-26 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's when the American business school ethic takes over. No right or wrong, legal or illegal, no such thing as pride in workmanship or quality; just whatever it takes to make the books look good for the next quarter. And, if it's illegal hope you're not the sorry sucker holding the bag before you get a chance to cash out.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Once you go public... by wiedzmin · 2012-01-26 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  hope you're not the sorry sucker holding the bag before you get a chance to cash out.
  New RIM "CEO" comes to mind.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
2. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever, I think you have confused the legal code for an ethical code. I have no problems with what Google did, except it seems to be a legally foolish decision.
3. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong.
  is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
  Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar.
  So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
  Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Once you go public... by alexborges · 2012-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck that man. I say let them publish whatever they want and let people buy whatever they want. Spending tax money in this kind of sterile morality is the stupidest thing government does.
  
  --
  NO SIG
5. Re:Once you go public... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  It is also what you get when you provide incentives to your sales reps that ONLY look at how much money they brought in.Was there a bonus for denying shady deals? Was there an allowance to do due diligence on shady-looking companies? Or was it "your base salary is $5 an hour. Your commission is 50%. Don't slack."?
  If it was the latter, don't be surprised by your sales reps turning a blind eye to shady set ups. And by the way, execs are not immune to this. If you reward them for turning a blind eye, they will.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
6. Re:Once you go public... by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-26 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, how dare they accept ads from companies willing to sell drugs to American consumers at a low cost. Clearly, the ethical party here is the government, who props up the monopolies of the pharmacy industry by force and prevents sick Americans from getting what they need to live at an affordable price.
  
  Won't somebody please think of the Big Pharma CEOs??
7. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot - the more likely cause is that Adwords is a huge, automated system and no one even considered the legal ramifications of "helping" people selling drugs illegally because they never used illegal drugs as a basis for any of their test cases when coding the adwords algorithms. While there's a LOT of potential for Google to be evil with it's capital - this definitely isn't it - the only evil in this story is that a larger organization run by the sleaziest of people and operated by the most incapable and idiotic among us (too fucking incompetent to get a job anywhere else) - just robbed a smaller group without basis, for $500 million dollars (yes, the government - in case any half-wits from it got lost on the interwebs and are reading this now).
8. Re:Once you go public... by afabbro · 2012-01-26 05:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's when the American business school ethic takes over. No right or wrong, legal or illegal, no such thing as pride in workmanship or quality;
  I can think of endless private companies that could be described the same. Heck, just look at your local strip club.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
9. Re:Once you go public... by darkmeridian · 2012-01-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  There is something to be said about banning the re-importation of US-branded drugs from Canada at a lower price. It's nuts that branded pills sent to Canada at a lower price become impotent when shipped back to the US.
  However, the story covers more than this. They were (pretending to) ship RU-486, the abortion drug, along with steroids and human growth hormone into the US, which is illegal. Moreover, it's not the word of a con man. There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of the kinds of drugs that were sold. This is a blockbuster case, and Google should be slapped for aiding what they knew was illegal sales of drugs to the US.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
10. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. If these people didn't work for the government, they'd realize that allowing prescription drugs into the U.S. would save americans money and they'd have been fine with it. That's what you meant, right?
11. Re:Once you go public... by Bob-taro · 2012-01-26 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong. is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
  Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar. So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
  Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
  Mod parent up. The whole thing COULD be true, but it's interesting how quick people can be to believe anything that backs up their preconceived notions (e.g. rich executives are evil) and then pile on with "yes, we all know that" sort of comments without even reading, much less questioning, the story.
  
  --
  Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
12. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  There are plenty of strip clubs around that have a significant amount of pride in "quality" and "workmanship"... An unethical strip club would be the one that uses pictures of girls that don't really work there in their promo material...
13. Re:Once you go public... by shaitand · 2012-01-26 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Business doesn't hesitate to play that game in reverse by claiming that actions were ethical because they didn't break the law. They do it all the time. Every time they break a contract for instance because it makes more economical sense to break their word.
14. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Read the actual article, in the Wall St Journal, not the crappy pcmag article that was based on it.
  http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204624204577176964003660658-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html
  They cite numerous credible sources, including the US Attorney who led the investigation. Oh, and there's also the fact that Google admitted to wrongdoing as part of their settlement. Feel free to keep your head in the sand though.
15. Re:Once you go public... by Chris+Burke · 2012-01-26 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, you think it's when the company goes public that its executives decide to throw morals out the window?
  Sure it's true that some sociopaths use the "fiduciary duty to shareholders" aspect of a public company to justify their pre-existing lack of ethics and morals (despite the lack of shareholder lawsuits against companies that don't behave unethically). Just how much have you bought into that narrative that you think that's when the problem actually starts?
  Like, if Google was just as big but privately owned they wouldn't have wanted to make the extra money from these drug ads? Like private businesses aren't run by people with the same "American business school ethics"? As if a company like Freescale was taken private after being public so it could finally be run ethically again... rather than avoiding the extra visibility -- and thus scrutiny -- a public company has so the owners can suck the money out of it without the employees knowing how long the checks will keep cashing.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
16. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  So your ethical code is OK with breaking the legal code whenever you feel like it ? I could see the point when talking about individuals and civil disobedience but anyone who thinks it's OK for corporations to ignore the law should have their head examined. It's enough that corporations as an entity are psychopathic and that some actively recruit psychopaths, let's not give them a license to break the law too.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
17. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The wall Street Journal (who wrote the original article) is a pretty reputable source as these things go. So when they write all the same facts and then follow up with :
  "Mr. Whitaker, who pleaded guilty and faced a maximum 65-year prison term, was sentenced in December to six years, following what federal prosecutors called "rather extraordinary" cooperation. He is due for release in two years."
  I tend to believe it.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
18. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA! -- without a prescription.
19. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, lets allow everyone to sell drugs over the internet without any oversight or checks whatsoever. What's the worst that could happen, right ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
20. Re:Once you go public... by icebraining · 2012-01-26 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  This has nothing to do with morality. They're "prescription drugs". This is about protecting the US drug companies.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
21. Re:Once you go public... by Pope · 2012-01-26 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  I know, they keep importing Russian girls instead of hiring the locals!
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
22. Re:Once you go public... by Laxori666 · 2012-01-26 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  What is the worst that could happen? Let's see...
  "Children might buy drugs!" Their parents should really have talked to them about this.
  "People might get high off drugs they buy online!" So what? They can do what they will with their bodies.
  "People will get high from these drugs and commit crimes to fund their drug habit/because they're high and belligerent!" People who harm others should be prosecuted, regardless of whether they're on drugs or not.
  "People will sell low-quality drugs online, advertising them as even something else entirely!" If you buy drugs online and you don't do a thorough check to make sure the seller is reputable or you're getting what you asked for, then you kind of have it coming to you.
  Yes, it would require people to take more responsibility for their actions. But the benefit is that you wouldn't have the government-enforced pharmaceutical monopoly, which I think would benefit consumers far more than these other effects would hurt them.
23. Re:Once you go public... by swb · 2012-01-26 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because it's not like we let people sell climbing rope, brake parts, or anything else that could cause people to get seriously hurt on the internet without any oversight or checks whatsoever.
24. Re:Once you go public... by forand · 2012-01-26 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think you missed geekoid's point. As the article of the WSJ article proclaims:
  
  Con Artist Starred in Sting That Cost Google Millions
  
  All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
25. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  If you're using a climbing rope or installing a brake part you probably have the expertise to check its quality. Who can test drugs at home ? Most of us aren't chemists. Even if you take the drug and it performs the function you bought it for it still could contain some cheaper active ingredient, or some binding agent, that some people could be allergic to. Drugs are dangerous, even the ones most people would consider harmless, when improperly used.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
26. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  "People will sell low-quality drugs online, advertising them as even something else entirely!" If you buy drugs online and you don't do a thorough check to make sure the seller is reputable or you're getting what you asked for, then you kind of have it coming to you.
  Yes, it would require people to take more responsibility for their actions. But the benefit is that you wouldn't have the government-enforced pharmaceutical monopoly, which I think would benefit consumers far more than these other effects would hurt them.
  It doesn't have to because of a scam, it could just be an exotic allergy someone has and the pills could work great for the other 99% of the population. People cannot check this for themselves, that's why in most (all?) developed countries the government has an agency that does it for them and practitioners that can be held accountable to dispense advice. When there's no verification that what's in the box actually corresponds to what's claimed on the box people will get killed. When people can just decide for themselves how to dose or rely an inexpert advice instead of that of a doctor or pharmacist people will get killed. Now you might consider that a reasonable trade-off to get rid of a "government tyranny", I do not.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
27. Re:Once you go public... by Darinbob · 2012-01-26 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds like the most bullshit part of the article. Larry Page does not micromanage every single ad on Google, there's not enough time in the day for that. This was not some major advertising deal that would have gotten executives involved. Instead some lower level sales person screwed it up.
28. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
  And by the prosecutor : "Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting."
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
29. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  Why would you believe the word of a convicted criminal who is being rewarded for his "cooperation"? You don't think this reward might bias his information some?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
30. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is immoral about helping your fellow citizens fill a need? The only immoral action here is the US government enforcing anti-competetive, and frankly oppressive laws.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
31. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that was part of what SOPA was doing! Helping them! But you darn kids and your dog had to stick your noses in the SOPA bill!
32. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  They were (pretending to) ship RU-486, the abortion drug, along with steroids and human growth hormone into the US, which is illegal.
  Illegal, but not immoral or unethical. Laws that conflict with our natural right to biochemical self-determination are unjust.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
33. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  You can come up with all the bullshit excuses you want, but the fact is the war on drugs is far more harmful than you could ever reasonably expect drugs to be. Even if you don't use drugs, you've lost civil liberties because of it.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
34. Re:Once you go public... by shaitand · 2012-01-26 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just business school ethic. It's legal ethic is anything. Every for-profit business is now incorporated with a mission/objective that is something to the effect of "have the purpose of engaging in and may engage in any lawful business activity". This is actually suggested by the individual states in their paperwork to incorporate.
  So every employee is part of a team whose primary objective to seek profit in any manner that is technically legal. Every board member, exec, officer, manager, and grunt on the floor is bound to pursue this objective. Legally, they are bound to seek profit and the only ethics that can legally trump that pursuit is the law.
35. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's confirmed by the prosecutor as I've stated in my reply above so it's not like there's a single source for the story. Of course we might never get actual proof because rather than go to court and risk the actual mails becoming a matter of public record brave sir Google ran away and settled for 500 million. Brave, brave sir Google.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
36. Re:Once you go public... by bennomatic · 2012-01-26 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  You don't think that the DOJ had a way of confirming the most salient information? Like bugging phone calls, capturing emails, taking photographs of meetings?
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
37. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  "The war on drugs" is on recreational drugs. We're talking about illegally sold legal substances, medicine, here. But the same argument holds true for illegal recreational drugs too, which is why more forward thinking countries like The Netherlands actually have agencies that will test illegal drugs for you so you can at least have an independent entity confirm what active substances you are using.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
38. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, well it's not like the prosecutor could be biased in any way...
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
39. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the DOJ has all sorts of ways to confirm information. I don't trust them to accurately convey that information to the public.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
40. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
  Then how do you explain the behavior of most US corporations?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
41. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, well it's not like the prosecutor could be biased in any way...
  He could be biased, though I've not heard anyone make that accusation let alone substantiate it. Not even Google, the defendant.
  Occams' Razor: What's more likely, that the prosecutor is biased had no case and Google settled out of court anyway for some strange reason, or that the story is closer to what was reported ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
42. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense, it's all the same thing. All substances are legal if you have the proper paperwork, so the war on drugs is absolutely a war on illegally sold legal substances. And the motivating factor for the bans isn't safety, it's securing industry profits.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
43. Re:Once you go public... by mcgrew · 2012-01-26 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about his ethical code, but a corporation's ethical code is that fines, settlements, and lost lawsuits are just another cost of doing business, even if the broken law really amounts to negligent mass homicide.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
44. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get me wrong I'm all for legalization of recreational drugs but I'm not for letting just anyone sell stuff that'll put you on life support if they get their dosages wrong. There's nothing wrong with the pharmaceutical industry that can't be fixed without doing that, all you need is a government with some balls. Basically what you seem to support is complete deregulation which historically has turned out to be detrimental to consumers and a boon to corporate profits.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
45. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Prosecutors are always biased. That's the basis of our adversarial justice system.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
46. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-26 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. But we're not talking about truth in advertising here. We're talking about prohibition. Those foreign pharmaceuticals are prohibited, whether they are accurately labeled or not.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
47. Re:Once you go public... by Creepy · 2012-01-26 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  But the real question is, did the Google employees know it was against the law to have ads that say "no prescription needed" and targeting US consumers at the time of the crime. I personally had no idea because the companies doing the advertising are based outside the US; though I did know that statement wasn't true for those drugs sold to people in the United States. It is definitely legal to sell steroids in some countries without a prescription, and if the ads were targeted at a region and not just the US that statement may be true (for instance, I've seen steroids for sale at pharmacies in Mexico).
  Anyhow, my point is that Google management may not have known it was a crime - they still are guilty of the crime because ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but there are thousands and thousands of laws and no one person can know all of them. I mean, heck, when I was a teenager in Minnesota I found out it was against the law to sleep naked, have oral sex, or have bathtubs without feet in that state (and I had broken every one of them). It is also illegal to cross state lines with a duck on one's head or cross into Wisconsin with a chicken on one's head but I never did either of those. I also never broke the law that bans driving red cars down Lake street in Minneapolis but have seen a lot of people breaking that one.
48. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  from near as I can tell, The Con artist claims he said that. No one talked to Mr. Neronha,
  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html
  Here is an older article:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/david-whitaker-google-pharmacy-probe_n_1027362.html
  And this is the same level of skepticism I apply to all articles and all companies.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
49. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's a great way to get people to die.
  You don't think people only buy drugs for themselves, do you?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
50. Re:Once you go public... by Creepy · 2012-01-26 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  ok, did some modern research and most of those laws I cited for Minnesota are fictitious, but I still find sites with them. I'm fairly certain the oral sex one was still on the books though (I seem to recall it being used in some rare cases of child abuse and rape). Still, there are crazy laws out there that are real.
51. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  If the US made a deal where they will buy x amount of drugs per year, the US drug prices would be lower. IT's ahs to do with guaranteeing volume; which is a standard and sane business practice. There is nothing shady about it.
  ". There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of the kinds of drugs that were sold. "
  NO there ISN"T. EVERY part of that story is simple implication.
  I can't found a damn think here http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/meetattorney.html about it.
  The original story says NOTHING about Larry Page knowing anything.
  All evidence points to a con man lying.
  Look at the article, it is eaither ineptly written, or worded to get Google headlines.
  it's for mat is :
  Implication.
  "Out of context quote"
  Implications.
  The source is crap. When they get a good source that talks about it outside the article, let me know.
  Follow the alleged quote from Mr. Neronha.
  I can't fin any information about this prior to the Huffington Post link. And the Huffington post isn't exactly rigors with fact checking.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
52. Re:Once you go public... by jedidiah · 2012-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The first rule of corporate law is that you don't talk about corporate law.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
53. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's the best you can come up with?
  How about People online lie about the quality?
  How about the fact that people buy drugs for other people?
  Please, tell me how you to a thorough check online without an agency the verifies the data and safety?
  There are a hell of a lot of medical issue that get taken into account when someone gets drugs.
  What about drug impacts to your drinking water? what about increase in antibiotic use?
  Picture the wal-mart effect put onto prescription drugs.
  You don't live on an island, and it's time you grew up and realized that.
  there is no pharmaceutical monopoly, however your idea would make it easier for there to be just one drug providing company..and it will provide low quality risky drugs.
  We have seen this market without regulation, and a hell of a lot of people died from snake oil salesmen.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
54. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Becomes a knowledgeable about rope takes about a week, same with brake pads. Drugs takes years of dedication, and an expensive lab to verify.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
55. Re:Once you go public... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Because you probably aren't actually helping. And for every person tryingh to help the person in need, there are going to be 100 companies pushing a sugar pill as a cure, only to close their doors after the first 10 million is made. Of course, without any regulation, there will not have to close their doors.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
56. Re:Once you go public... by jedidiah · 2012-01-26 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  To sum up:
  The prosecutor knows best.
  If someone takes a plea, it's because they are guilty.
  With attitudes like that, it's little wonder Google took the plea.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
57. Re:Once you go public... by swb · 2012-01-26 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You're a materials science expert within a week?
58. Re:Once you go public... by Belial6 · 2012-01-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  That the prosecutor is biased hand no cas and Google settled out of court. Although I would think that spending less on the settlement than it would cost you to fight it out isn't a "strange" reason.
59. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  500 million buys you a lot of lawyering. And presumably they've got a legal department or some firms on retainer already.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
60. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Prosecutors are always biased. That's the basis of our adversarial justice system.
  They also presumably don't even start proceedings against a big corporation like Google without having a case they think has some merit and has evidence to support it.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
61. Re:Once you go public... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Skepticism is OK. But you're not applying your skepticism the same way to all your sources, why trust these articles ? Because they're older ? The reverse is true: the Wall Street Journal might have done additional research in the meantime and more official statements may have been made. There's a difference between skepticism and incredulity.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
62. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  I once saw a strip club in Vegas that advertised that it was listed on NASDAQ. True story.
63. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's the war on illegal drugs (like meth, ecstasy, cocaine, etc.), this is about restricting the trade and import of US manufactured legal and medical drugs sold to Canada and brought back to the US (things like Tylenol and birth control). The two are nothing alike. Go away troll.
64. Re:Once you go public... by causality · 2012-01-26 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's a great way to get people to die.
  You don't think people only buy drugs for themselves, do you?
  It's called chlorine in the gene pool. Hate it all you want, throw as many emotional reactions to it as you like. Climb up on your high horse and decry how terribly evil it is that people who do stupid things might harm themselves (harming yourself = no victim = no injustice). I don't care. If you think that's bad, the only thing worse is the alternative.
  
  The government's only role in the equation should be to ensure that the drugs sold are in fact what they say they are. But that's only because it would be an instance of fraud if they weren't. Fraud is plain old fraud, there is nothing special about it merely because the fradulent item happens to be an ingestible substance. Prosecuting fraud is well within the legitimate law enforcement powers of government.
  
  So long as no fraud is taking place, I fully agree with GP - let them advertise what they want and let people purchase what they like. Otherwise if you want to go on a moral crusade to protect adults from their own stupid decision-making, online pharmacies would be near the bottom of your list. You could start with banning all automobiles -- stupid people hurt themselves with cars quite a bit more often, you know. Oh and don't forget swimming pools! I'd hazard a guess more people drown in swimming pools each year than die from buying prescriptions online. There will be no death on this planet!
  
  I doubt you want to admit it but electing yourself the protector of other adults, against their will, is effectively a claim that you are a better human being than they are, they are not your equal, and you should therefore rightfully be their personal dictator in charge of running their lives. There is no way around it. All "you must be protected from yourself!" sentiments boil down to this and have their basis in it, though usually there is a great deal of denial hidden behind feel-good "I'm a good guy who means well, really!" type of intentions.
  
  I don't care how sweet and kind your intentions are; that is an evil far worse than consenting adults putting substances into their bodies.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
65. Re:Once you go public... by causality · 2012-01-26 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to because of a scam, it could just be an exotic allergy someone has and the pills could work great for the other 99% of the population.
  The last candy bar I bought disclosed its potential allergens. "May have been processed on equipment used to handle peanuts and/or tree nuts" or something to that effect. A pharmacy can't handle what a candy company does daily? It couldn't be a requirement for them while retaining everyone else's freedoms? Sure it could.
  
  Besides, I don't understand your logic. I really, really don't. You want to keep the abusive, bought-and-paid-for pharmaceutical monopoly and deny natural rights (to do with your body what you will) to consenting adults because of weird, exotic personal problems a tiny minority may or may not ever experience? That ... that blows my mind. Please tell me you're not going to pull a "greater good" type of justification for that.
  
  When there's no verification that what's in the box actually corresponds to what's claimed on the box people will get killed.
  That's called fraud. I have no problem with prosecuting fraud. Fraud is fraud, whether somebody rolls back the odometer on their car or whether someone sells aspirin and claims it is an antibiotic. Fraud is not special just because the fradulent item is ingestible. If intentional fraud leads to a death, I have no problem with it becoming a murder or manslaughter case. Again, there's nothing special about it just because drugs, those taboo objects moral busybodies can't be comfortable with, happen to be involved.
  
  When people can just decide for themselves how to dose or rely an inexpert advice instead of that of a doctor or pharmacist people will get killed.
  If I could walk down the street and legally purchase ANY substance I wanted, including drugs that are currently illegal, with no questions asked, nothing to fear from the police, and I had a serious illness ... do you know what I would do? I would go visit a doctor, not to get access (a prescription) to a restricted drug, but to get access to his knowledge of medicine. I would still consult with a professional expert about what unrestricted, freely-available substance I should take to treat my serious illness and how much I should take. I have no sympathy whatsoever for some idiot who is too careless and irresponsible to do the same. Such a person deserves whatever they get. It's not my job to tell them how to live. It's not yours either.
  
  You mention government tyranny? Tyranny always needs a justification, however flimsy. You know what ultimately causes every kind of tyranny? The belief that people should never be expected to have personal responsibility or exercise some good sense, that they should always be threatened with some kind of punishment to make sure they look after their own interests. It's a fucking abomination wrapped in feel-good language that spreads among the naive like a virus.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
66. Re:Once you go public... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  There's actually some noise in the climbing community over counterfeit Chinese climbing equipment made with substandard materials. Even legit places may end up selling it, as the shipments they get have some of it slipped in. Same problem as the US Military is having with counterfeit parts.
  And no, a climber might not be able to check this. Some of these parts are perfect replicas, possibly even made with master or duplicated master molds, the only difference is that the metal is shittier. Good luck figuring that out on your own.
67. Re:Once you go public... by shiftless · 2012-01-26 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  No right or wrong,
  Pray tell me, what's so wrong about advertising and selling drugs to people like me who want them?
  legal or illegal,
  The overall effect of our laws (and the actual effect of these in question) is enslavement, not liberty, which is why patriots break these unjust laws whenever and wherever possible.
68. Re:Once you go public... by shiftless · 2012-01-26 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Good argument.
  The government's only role in the equation should be to ensure that the drugs sold are in fact what they say they are.
  I'd go so far as to say they don't have any business with this, either. If the government's hands were completely out of it, we could rely on branding and trade marks to let us know which products to trust.
69. Re:Once you go public... by rtb61 · 2012-01-27 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough in a lot of countries this case would be considered entrapment. The Feds created the crime, they knew it would slip past Googles advertising review because of google is a numbers advertiser (it has to push a huge number of adds by a huge number of companies over a huge range of products and services).
  So a cunning prosecutor set up a crime, rather than a government department going to warn google about the nature of advertising over a range of products and giving them time to adjust or that department would investigate adds over time (too much hard work and too risky might not get that promotion driving conviction).
  Reality is in most instances, the cheap Canadian pharmacies and given Americans access to life saving drugs that could not otherwise afford but "PROFITS FIRST and LIVES LAST", lets all guess who were the corporations skulking in the background driving this prosecution via lobbyists.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
70. Re:Once you go public... by Hatta · 2012-01-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  So, the fact that charges have been made against Google means they are guilty? Really?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
71. Re:Once you go public... by Miamicanes · 2012-01-27 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think you have the numbers backwards, and wildly exaggerated to boot. In most cases, the drugs people buy online are fairly cheap to make, to the point where it would cost more to convincingly adulterate a drug than to just make it properly. Plus, the profit margins on those drugs sold to Americans are so *astronomically* high compared to their local markets (because we're used to getting anally-raped as the normal course of things), they really ARE better off selling the real thing to happy repeat buyers who'll spread the word to all their friends who take long-term maintenance drugs that are expensive, a pain, or both, to buy in the US.
  As a general rule, the more mundane a maintenance drug is (blood pressure, cholesterol, and proton-pump inhibitors come to mind), the more likely that what you're getting from a foreign pharmacy is going to be perfectly good.
  Keep in mind also that most "no prescription" online pharmacies aren't technically "no prescription" -- they're just taking advantage of local laws allowing "telemedicine" that are loosely enforced to allow a staff (usually, retired) doctor to rubber-stamp the prescriptions after an online "consultation" (where you checked the box that says, "these are my symptoms, and I have no known allergies").
72. Re:Once you go public... by causality · 2012-01-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Good argument.
  The government's only role in the equation should be to ensure that the drugs sold are in fact what they say they are.
  I'd go so far as to say they don't have any business with this, either. If the government's hands were completely out of it, we could rely on branding and trade marks to let us know which products to trust.
  The problem with relying solely on reputation is that it raises the barriers to entry for an upstart. It's also unreasonable to expect someone to risk their health and/or their life in order to find out whether what they ingested is what it claims to be. I think that makes this somewhat special, and not like a new car that breaks down the day you buy it where you're alive and well enough to seek recourse against the dealer.
  
  I don't personally want anarcho-capitalism. I want a strictly limited government that only establishes a minimal standard for doing business. Specifically, that standard is that force, threat of force, and fraud have no place in a legitimate market.
  
  Someone sells pills filled with rat poison and advertises it as aspirin? Yes, I have no problem prosecuting that guy. The intent to cause harm to adults who did NOT consent to be harmed is there. That's what makes it a crime.
  
  Someone sells pills advertised as oxycodone that are, in fact, oxycodone and somebody buys them and overdoses? Let the buyer beware. Don't prosecute the seller. He was honest about the product. The user should have done his homework and understood what he was dealing with. The user made a choice not to inform himself and he reaped the consequences of that choice. He is a consenting adult who had a choice and chose to harm himself. There is no crime there.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
American business school ethics... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:20 · Score: 1

It's funny you say that, have you ever actually ben in an American Business school? I have, and we were required to take several ethics courses as well as weighing the ethical impacts of any decisions we made in case studies.
There are assholes everywhere who don't do the right thing, business is no different.
1. Re:American business school ethics... by knotprawn · 2012-01-26 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, there are ethics courses in Business Schools. However, it's also firmly drilled into students that the bottomline is the bottomline, and that it's best not to put your bottom on the line.
2. Re:American business school ethics... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently they don't teach you how to use "Reply" buttons, though.
3. Re:American business school ethics... by SydShamino · 2012-01-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  But it only takes a few in business to do the wrong thing to make the whole business look wrong, as in the case here. Certainly most Google employees knew nothing of this, right?
  Of course, since Google is in fact an Actual Person, and Actual People who aren't schizophrenic can't both know and not know something, then we should legally assume that if any one Google employee knew about this, then they all knew about this, and therefore every Google executive should go to prison. Sounds fair to me, them being the same Actual Person and all...
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
4. Re:American business school ethics... by paiute · 2012-01-26 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  It's funny you say that, have you ever actually ben in an American Business school? I have, and we were required to take several ethics courses as well as weighing the ethical impacts of any decisions we made in case studies.
  Just curious - did the ethics courses try to teach you how to differentiate between one decision that makes a lot of money from one that makes slightly more money or did they have any lessons on how to decide between A, which breaks some laws and involves some lies but makes the company a nice profit, and B, which obeys the law but costs the company huge losses and your job.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
5. Re:American business school ethics... by Hognoxious · 2012-01-26 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  we were required to take several ethics courses
  Is it true the marks from those courses get deducted from your overall score?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:American business school ethics... by shaitand · 2012-01-26 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't heard of any business schools where they teach that a business should behave in the same manner that would be considered ethical for a human being. Mostly I hear more along the lines of ethics in terms of consequences for action. For example, it is commonly taught that breaking a contract is a business decision and it is fair to make if you are willing to accept the consequences but when an individual does this it is considered lying, breaking your word, failing to uphold your obligation, etc.
  The biggest problem isn't what is taught in business school. A company isn't a person, it isn't even the top people. Everyone in a for-profit entity is tasked with pursuing the goals of that organization, its purpose, and the reason that pretty much every for-profit entity is incorporated these days is something to the effect of "pursuing profit by any means allowed by law
7. Re:American business school ethics... by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Which business school did you go to?You haven't been to business school? STFU about what occurs in Business school.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:American business school ethics... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I've been in an American business school. I was waiting between classes in the hallway and the teacher was explaining how to use advertising to deceive customer. She explained what you could get away with legally. There was zero talk about ethics or what might happen when the customers find out they were lied to. It was disgusting and I'm sad no one in the class even asked if her advice was ethical. Anecdotal, I know. As is the fact that every MBA I've ever met has been an unethical asshole. Were are they hiding the good guys?
Oh noes the evil by Dyinobal · 2012-01-26 05:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ya because Americans being able to get decently priced drugs, is such a crime. My father buys drugs from a company like the ones they mention in the ads. He can't afford drugs here in the USA even though the ones he gets from Canada are exactly the same, yet cost one tenth the price.
1. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  You're either with US or you're with the terrorists.
2. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Things that require a prescription in this country can't be bought in unknown quantities from places that don't require prescriptions.
3. Re:Oh noes the evil by afabbro · 2012-01-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Ya because Americans being able to get decently priced drugs, is such a crime.
  I agree on this, but as I recall, a lot of these shady "pharmacies" were selling unlimited quantities oxycontin and xanax to anyone who said "I have a toothache" or "I'm a little stressed" for grossly inflated prices. In other words, drug dealing.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
4. Re:Oh noes the evil by ae1294 · 2012-01-26 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Things that require a prescription in this country can't be bought in unknown quantities from places that don't require prescriptions.
  I assure you that they can...
5. Re:Oh noes the evil by tomhath · 2012-01-26 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  If all countries played fair in this I expect the prices in the US would go down by about 10% and the prices in countries like Canada would go up about 900%.
6. Re:Oh noes the evil by Dyinobal · 2012-01-26 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The one my father uses doesn't sell pain killers, they sell actual medication. For things like arthritis, asthma and other such maladies. Though I imagine there is some truth to what you say but I'd imagine most people who want pain killers, just find a doctor who is willing to write them the prescription. They aren't terrible hard to find.
7. Re:Oh noes the evil by alen · 2012-01-26 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  try costco for drugs
  the way the canadian pharmacies work is the government buys up the drugs and they sell it to americans subsidized by the canadian government because the social health system is always short of money
8. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the bigger question. Why shouldn't people be able to drug themselves into oblivion if they want? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all...what if they find happiness in a pill bottle? Oh right, we're only supposed to do "good drugs" prescribed to us by drug peddlers^W^Wdoctors. Oh and take our "happy pills" like SSRIs/ADHD meds and that's okay as long as you don't get "high". How are some of these doctors and pharmaceutical companies any different than drug dealers and narco-terrorists?
9. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  the way the canadian pharmacies work is the government buys up the drugs and they sell it to americans subsidized by the canadian government because the social health system is always short of money
  WRONG!
  We have public healthcare, and the Canada Health Act helps organize healthcare federally. But there is no federal drugs program forcing Big Pharma to lower its drug prices. Yet. Hopefully next election we'll boot out the Harper Party and get a government interested in bulk purchases and economies of scale. :)
10. Re:Oh noes the evil by HornWumpus · 2012-01-26 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, the Canadian government said to the drug companies 'sell us the drugs at cost or we will invalidate your patents!'
  The drug company caved, thinking they had a captive market in the USA. Now the drug companies are learning the true cost of not fighting the Canadian government extortionists.
  I bet Canada will soon be paying market prices for its drugs. These contracts don't last forever.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
11. Re:Oh noes the evil by 0123456 · 2012-01-26 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Now the drug companies are learning the true cost of not fighting the Canadian government extortionists.
  When did _not_ giving companies a government-granted monopoly become 'extortion'?
  
  I bet Canada will soon be paying market prices for its drugs.
  How can a price be a 'market price' when it's the result of a government-granted monopoly? If you want people to pay a market price for a drug, then eliminate drug patents.
12. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Canadian gov't doesn't buy many drugs, except for the military, and it controls the patent system. Prescription drugs prices are negotiated individually by the provinces.
  There is no such thing as 'paying market prices' when there is no market. It's a monopsony within each province, and the seller is a monopolist.
  The provinces say: "Sell us the drugs at only x% profit margin, or we'll lift the ceiling for generic mfrs to make more of your drugs with expired patents". When a monopolist meets a monopsony, they tend to rant and cry, but ultimately decide that making some money is better than making none.
  Arbitrage (selling to Americans) routes around the divided markets, and can net lose money for the mfrs. If you think the cash-strapped provinces are willing to risk their costs so that Americans can buy from Canadian pharmacies, think again. If push comes to shove, it will become illegal in Canada. But banning pharma sales to Americans in person with prescriptions in hand would be unethical, so that will likely not be made illegal.
13. Re:Oh noes the evil by 0123456 · 2012-01-26 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully next election we'll boot out the Harper Party and get a government interested in bulk purchases and economies of scale. :)
  Harper had a minority government until the left committed suicide by forcing an election. That has to be one of the biggest own goals in political history, and I don't see why you'd expect him to do worse in the next election after that debacle.
14. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:55 · Score: 1
  I bet Canada will soon be paying market prices for its drugs. These contracts don't last forever.
  It's not contracts; it's the law:
  
  The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) is an independent quasi-judicial body established by Parliament in 1987 under the Patent Act (Act).
  The PMPRB protects the interests of Canadian consumers by ensuring that the prices of patented medicines sold in Canada are not excessive. It does this by reviewing the prices that patentees charge for each individual patented drug product in Canadian markets. If a price is found to be excessive, the Board can hold public hearings and order price reductions and/or the offset of excess revenues. The PMPRB regulates the “factory gate” prices and does not have jurisdiction over prices charged by wholesalers or pharmacies, or over pharmacists professional fees.
  The following factors are used to determine if a drug is excessively priced:
  
  the prices at which the medicine has been sold in the relevant market
  the prices at which other medicines in the same therapeutic class have been sold in the relevant market
  the prices at which the medicine and other medicines in the same therapeutic class have been sold in countries other than Canada
  changes in the Consumer Price Index
  any other factors that may be set out in regulations
  And it's not special to Canada: pretty much all wealthy countries have some form of price control on patented drugs.
15. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  No, they can't.
  If I call up Pedro and ask him to send me some weed he generally asks me how much I want.
16. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Q.E.D Canada is a Terrorist.
17. Re:Oh noes the evil by hawguy · 2012-01-26 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the bigger question. Why shouldn't people be able to drug themselves into oblivion if they want? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all...what if they find happiness in a pill bottle? Oh right, we're only supposed to do "good drugs" prescribed to us by drug peddlers^W^Wdoctors. Oh and take our "happy pills" like SSRIs/ADHD meds and that's okay as long as you don't get "high". How are some of these doctors and pharmaceutical companies any different than drug dealers and narco-terrorists?
  In general, I agree, but some drugs as so addictive or harmful that they present an unfair medical or welfare burden on society. Though legalization of some "safe" drugs may keep people from moving to more harmful drugs of unknown quality and purity (like Bath Salts)
  Your proposal to let people drug themselves into oblivion only makes sense if the drug user could sign away his rights to governmental financial support or medical treatment.
18. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Things that require a prescription in this country can't be bought legally in unknown quantities from places that don't require prescriptions.
  FTFY.
19. Re:Oh noes the evil by westlake · 2012-01-26 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  My father buys drugs from a company like the ones they mention in the ads. He can't afford drugs here in the USA even though the ones he gets from Canada are exactly the same, yet cost one tenth the price.
  Is he buying drugs in the amounts his doctors would have prescribed?
  Is he receiving the drugs his doctors would have prescribed?
20. Re:Oh noes the evil by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-01-26 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that drug companies will disclose how to make the drugs they develop without drug patents. Or if they are obligated to that they would be able to compete with companies that do not fund research. I am not sure this would work.
21. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  You can easily buy a bottle with the right name on it. Whether the pills inside are the right drug is another question.
22. Re:Oh noes the evil by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thewn he shoud be pushing for a Healthcare program.
  Canada's drugs are sheap because the buy a guaranted
  Do you know who ahs cheaping drugs then Canada? the VA. Do you know wny> a garunteed min. volume.
  However when the government tries to do thagt, people like you scream about it.
  IF you think it wasn't regulated there would even be a volume min? no. Everyone would pay higher prices.
  Your father is leeching off Canada's 'socialized' medicine program.
  There is no magic plot to make Americans pay more then Canadians from the same company for the same drug.
  There are a bunch of people on office who think people should suffer, and think people dying and not getting a column discount on drugs is a good thing.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
23. Re:Oh noes the evil by geekoid · 2012-01-26 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  False. Thanks for playing.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
24. Re:Oh noes the evil by martin-boundary · 2012-01-26 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ya because Americans being able to get decently priced drugs, is such a crime. My father buys drugs from a company like the ones they mention in the ads. He can't afford drugs here in the USA even though the ones he gets from Canada are exactly the same, yet cost one tenth the price.
  
  M'kay, seniors, you shouldn't do drugs, m'kay, drugs are bad. You see, I was at the bottom of the barrel, I was a wreck. Why, I didn't even care about money. I was wasting my life... You mature Americans need to listen up, m'kay, what I'm talking about might save your life some day... Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, because drugs are bad. It's a bad thing to do drugs, so don't be bad by doing drugs, m'kay, that'd be bad.
25. Re:Oh noes the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  Witness the plethora of drugs, including life saving drugs and chemotherapy drugs that are simply not made anymore. The reason? The patents on them ran out, so it is no longer profitable for anybody to manufacture them. Do you really want a system where the people who spend billions of dollars doing the most complex chemistry we know, performing studies, statistically analyzing the outcome, applying for FDA approval, and finally competing with other companies for marketshare are awarded nothing for their efforts? The lifetime of drug patents is 14 years - which is shorter than the 20 years for everything else.
  Think before you post next time. The pharmaceutical companies are immoral bastards, but not granting them the ability to make money will immediately halt any R&D done by private industry, which would be _bad_.
26. Re:Oh noes the evil by guises · 2012-01-26 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  How can a price be a 'market price' when it's the result of a government-granted monopoly? If you want people to pay a market price for a drug, then eliminate drug patents.
  Exactly. There's no such thing as a free market for drugs - when people literally have a choice between paying whatever the drug company wants or dying, there's no room for market forces.
  
  This is only an issue because the United States is unique as the only country in the world which allows people to be subjected to this choice. Every other country which allows for drug patents also regulates the price of drugs, so that companies can't just charge whatever they want.
Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by squiggleslash · 2012-01-26 05:21 · Score: 1, Troll

What's triggering this?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Because they're becoming an increasingly good business and not some nerdy academic project?
2. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  What's triggering this?
  Google?
3. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by iluvcapra · 2012-01-26 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Bavarian illuminati, freemasons, elders of zion, the psyops corps of the PLA and the shade of Osama bin Laden.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
4. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by shazzle · 2012-01-26 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  Shattering of an illusion that scroogle.org has tried to tell us about for so long: Google is evil, like all the rest of them.
  http://www.scroogle.org/gifs/gscrew.gif
  Some alternatives to searching, which I think is the most dangerous tool to lose your privacy on: https://duckduckgo.com/ https://www.ixquick.com/ and of course http://scroogle.org/ that has many SSL-solutions, depending on your OS.
5. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  What's triggering this?
  It's Zuckerbitch being irritated over Google+ - the story isn't even real.
  "Everyone thinks we're evil - and we are - but what if we make the other guy look more evil!"
6. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by squiggleslash · 2012-01-26 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  Well, maybe they are, maybe they're not, but of the three articles published in the last 24 hours by Slashdot:
  
  One was an outright falsehood. (The claim Google is forcing all new sign-ups to create Google+ profiles.)
  One was misleading, and arguably the truth was positive (spin was "Google is changing their ToS so that everyone has to share their details across all their websites!"), reality was "Google has always shared information across their websites, and the ToS is being standardized and hence made easier to understand.
  And then there's this one, which appears to take a negative incident for Google (Google did, indeed, take ads from online pharmacies), and add some serious but unsubstantiated (and dubiously sourced) allegations to it (Billion-dollar-a-year Google's CEOs for some reason deciding, directly, to chase the million dollar market for online pharmacy ads. Does this one even make sense?)
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
7. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't you ask the slashdot editors why they choose to accept them to the front page? Its no different from the half-truths about MS that get regularly frontpaged.
8. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Tipping point Hate.
  When some companies get big, some loud minorities start looking for mistakes. or, as in this case, hearsay of mistakes or 'evil'.
  Almost everything McDonalds is accused of is a fabrication. Yet, people still believe stupid shit, anecdotes, or ignorant people presenting 'facts' without any actual evidence or thinking applied.
  Same thing with Google.
  People, on Slashdot fear what they can't be bothered to understand.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
9. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by swillden · 2012-01-26 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  One was misleading, and arguably the truth was positive (spin was "Google is changing their ToS so that everyone has to share their details across all their websites!"), reality was "Google has always shared information across their websites, and the ToS is being standardized and hence made easier to understand.
  I have to correct this one.
  I was one of the posters asserting that it wasn't a change in policy, but I was wrong, as another slashdotter pointed out. Some of Google's (numerous) privacy policies do not, in fact, allow Google to share information across different Google properties. I think most people always assumed (as I did) that if you typed something into gmail that the contents might be used to tailor ads you see on search, etc. But it wasn't the case, and as of March 1st it will be. So it is a change.
  I still argue that it's a positive move by Google, though, because I don't see the change as one that's unreasonable or surprising, and I do think Google's attempt to create a short, readable privacy policy and to make it widely understood by their user base is a really positive move. Many on-line services have privacy policies that are pages of dense legalese, and which they feel free to change at any time without notice. Google could easily have done this quietly and gradually, one service at a time, burying the meaning in legalese, and probably avoided any significant press about it. I think a company that just wants to "stay legal" while exploiting its users would do exactly that. Google's up-front approach, and the coming media blitz about it, show a great deal of integrity IMO.
  That probably sounds like spin, but I think it's pretty clear that Google honestly wants to ensure that it's not "tricking" people into giving up information about themselves, that it's an open and fair exchange of value -- personalized information for personalized advertising, basically. The company would rather people know about it and make a conscious decision one way or the other.
  (Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I don't have anything to do with setting these policies, and all of this is just my own opinion, not official commentary.)
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
10. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by mjwx · 2012-01-26 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  Bavarian illuminati, freemasons, elders of zion, the psyops corps of the PLA and the shade of Osama bin Laden.
  You forgot,
  The NSA, CIA cyber operatives, the Majestic Council of 12,. psycorps, KGB (or whatever they're called these days) and Mossad.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by squiggleslash · 2012-01-27 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the correction. I have to say I'm very surprised that this is new, especially as I always assumed Google did a lot of cross site tracking, regardless of whether it was Google owned, or just something that had Adsense on it. Most of us have had the experience of browsing a particular site for products and then finding that (what we assume is) Adsense serves up ads for those products everywhere else.
  I agree with your sentiment that Google is being up-front about this, and that's positive.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
12. Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories by datavirtue · 2012-01-27 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I've noticed it for some time. Google is powerful by their own merit, derived from the value provided to everyday people. Worse, they do not cozy up and collude with the establishment of aged wealth on the planet and thy are not terribly interested in politics. The good ol' boys club is very agitated, and they are using their power to turn public opinion against Google. They, Google, if they are not already, need to align themselves to fight this by finding the powerful people who want them to succeed and partnering with them. I find it troubling that every-day regular people are engaging in Google bashing. Are we really able to be led around by the mainstream media that easily?
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
So why is this even forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:22 · Score: 0

Why are these drugs illegal to begin with? They are not addictive and most users will be well aware of both their benefits and risks. These are not people in a weak position that need to be protected against themselves. Moreover there is no way to prevent people from using them as they are also sold in gyms. And if the government is afraid people may get bad stuff, why not simply allow normal pharmacies to sell them?
1. Re:So why is this even forbidden? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-26 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  They're not illegal drugs. The headline was misleading.
  They're prescription drugs, and selling them without a prescription is illegal.
2. Re:So why is this even forbidden? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  The question then becomes why they require a prescription, or why doctors aren't willing to simply give one at request.
3. Re:So why is this even forbidden? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-26 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because that would make it too easy for people like Rush Limbaugh to get prescription drugs.
$500 million settlement? by charlieo88 · 2012-01-26 05:23 · Score: 2

For Google, it's not that much, but $500 million for most of us would be.... wait for it... a bitter pill to swallow.
And now we have proof that by geekoid · 2012-01-26 05:23 · Score: 5, Informative

the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
Everything in the story comes from either a Con Artists claiming it's true, or known events that do not contridict the original story.
I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
And then end?
" allegedly from Jason Corriente's brother, saying the online entrepreneur died in a car crash."
So, they got all the evidences and did nothing?
Sorry, not buying it. Lets have the feds come forward to confirm this story.
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:And now we have proof that by Tsingi · 2012-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
  Which begs the question: Where's Bonch?
2. Re:And now we have proof that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  My guess would be that he's ignoring this story since it completely destroys his "Slashdot never says anything bad about Google!" persecution complex.
3. Re:And now we have proof that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Are you functionally retarded? This story is confirmed by the Federal government and Google's financials. Take off your tinfoil hat you degenerate neckbeard.
4. Re:And now we have proof that by iriemon · 2012-01-26 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  The settled for 500 MILLION. Isn't that proof?
5. Re:And now we have proof that by westlake · 2012-01-26 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
  I can see 500 million reasons to believe it's all true.
  
  The Wall Street Journal has an excellent page-one story today on how federal agents caught Google deliberately breaking the law so it could make money off sites selling drugs online. That case ended with a settlement in which Google avoided criminal prosecution by paying the feds more than half a billion dollars.
  The Journal Takes Us Inside the Google Drugs Sting
6. Re:And now we have proof that by jeffmeden · 2012-01-26 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
  Which begs the question: Where's Bonch?
  ah HAH! That's not begging the question!
7. Re:And now we have proof that by tilante · 2012-01-26 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Amazingly enough, words and phrases in natural languages often have more than one use. The fact that the modern phrase "begs the question" (see "Modern Usage" in the same article you linked) doesn't have the same meaning as the classical fallacy doesn't mean that the modern usage is "wrong", any more than the fact that the term "rocket" has been used for centuries in British English to mean the herb eruca sativa means that someone using it to describe a rocket engine is wrong.
  Further, it should be noted that calling the logical fallacy "begging the question" stems from a poor translation of the original Latin petitio principii. From post-Classical Latin, from which the phrase originates, a much better English translation would be "assuming the premise". It would be much more logical to use this much more easily-understood translation for the logical fallacy (or to simply use the Latin phrase, as is often done with, for example, non sequitur and post hoc, ergo propter hoc), and quit confusing people with a "translation" that is regularly misunderstood by native speakers of the intended language.
8. Re:And now we have proof that by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So you don't trust the con man, how about Google itself :
  "Google acknowledged in the settlement that it had improperly and knowingly assisted online pharmacy advertisers allegedly based in Canada to run advertisements for illicit pharmacy sales targeting U.S. customers."
  Or the prosecutor :
  "Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting."
  "But the company's ad executives worked with Mr. Whitaker to find a way around Google rules, according to prosecutors and Mr. Whitaker's account."
  "The federal task force, which also included the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, was preparing criminal charges against the company and its executives for aiding and abetting criminal activity online, prosecutors said."
  "Suffice to say this was not two or three rogue employees at the customer service level doing this on their own," said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney. "This was corporate decision to engage in this conduct."
  No ? How about the shareholders :
  "Six private shareholder lawsuits have so far been filed against Google's executives and board members, alleging they damaged the company by not taking earlier action against the illegal pharmacy ads."
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
9. Re:And now we have proof that by Silentknyght · 2012-01-26 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
  Depending on how you word that, I'd agree. It's very obviously under Murdoch's direct influence. The decision to publish this story (as opposed to any other) is almost certainly in retaliation to Google's public opposition to SOPA/PIPA, about which Murdoch has already vociferously expressed his (ahem) disapproval.
10. Re:And now we have proof that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't care less.
11. Re:And now we have proof that by Hognoxious · 2012-01-26 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which begs the question
  No it doesn't, but anyway...
  
  Where's Bonch?
  He's gone to ground - he's the informant.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
12. Re:And now we have proof that by Hognoxious · 2012-01-26 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Wall Street Journal has an excellent page-one story today on how federal agents entrapped Google into breaking the law so they could get promotions and a nice, ummm, gift from big pharma
  
  Corrections in italics.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
13. Re:And now we have proof that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  On a scale of 0 to 10 I care -11!
14. Re:And now we have proof that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Why should I trust either the Federal government or Google?
15. Re:And now we have proof that by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's proof the where advertising something they were supposed to, not proof the Larry Page was personally making ad deals.
  The question is not that ads went out, the issue is did Larry Page personally know of this?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
16. Re:And now we have proof that by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  the first line in that link makes me question the whole thing.
  The WSJ article is not excellent. I'm not talking about correct, I'm talking about the writing. It's pretty poor. Whole paragraphs look like they where just slopped in.
  I also wonder with the look at WSJ, even though the Same story was on the Huffington Post. Minus what seems to be the thrown in bit in WSJ.
  It really reads like Catan saw the Huf-po article, copied it and then added some paragraphs filled with irrelevant data implications.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Don't be Evil* by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:26 · Score: 0

*unless there is money involved
What law did the break? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:26 · Score: 0

Very confused here. I thought corporations were now people so where are their 1st amendment protections?
1. Re:What law did the break? by jeffmeden · 2012-01-26 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Very confused here. I thought corporations were now people so where are their 1st amendment protections?
  That thinking only applies when you are a corporate entity looking to publish negative, often completely untrue ads about politicians without revealing who you are or who gave you money... If you are looking to do something like making money off of the promotion of the availability of prescription-like substances on the international market, you bet your ass that it's not about rights any more...
Why is this against the law? by revscat · 2012-01-26 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I should preface this by saying that I am no Google fan. I think they have made many poor decisions over the past few years, and the GPYW initiative has caused me to switch over to DuckDuckGo full time.
Having said that...
Why is it illegal for Canadian drug companies to advertise their goods in the United States? The US has insanely high drug prices, and Canadian imports of those same products are (or could be) beneficial to the lives, health, and finances of who knows how many people. This is an unjust law, and am having an incredibly difficult time finding a justification for it.
This seems like yet another instance of the pharmaceutical lobby protecting their vast profits from competition.
1. Re:Why is this against the law? by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-26 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason it's illegal to import DVDs from Africa to sell in the US. The drug companies find they can sell drugs in the US for a LOT more than they can almost anywhere else, so they do. Allowing imports from other countries would defeat that.
2. Re:Why is this against the law? by elsurexiste · 2012-01-26 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Check this post. IANAL.
  
  --
  I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
3. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Some drugs like OxyContin are only supposed to be available with a prescription, since they could be abused for recreational use.
4. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  You know how airlines might sell one seat for $50 while the one next to it might sell for $500? That's because some people can afford $500 and other can only afford $50. If you made it "fair" and charged everybody the same price, you wouldn't have an airplane full of $50 seats, you'd have an airplane full of $300-400 seats. Of course then only people who could afford $300 or so would be able to fly.
  The reason DVDs in Africa are so cheap is that Africans can't afford to pay a month's salary for a DVD. The reason DVDs in the US are so much more expensive is that the movie companies need to have somebody pay for the making of the movies.
  The reason drugs in Canada are so cheap is that Canada has a single-payer system (the government) and they refuse to pay very much to get drugs. Since drug companies still want to get some money from Canada, they sell to Canada above cost but well below what it would take to recoup the R&D costs on the drugs. The reason drugs are so expensive in the US is that drug companies need to have somebody pay for R&D.
  dom
5. Re:Why is this against the law? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-26 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  The reason drugs are so expensive in the US is that drug companies need to have somebody pay for R&D.
  Giggle.
  Snort.
  ROTFL.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Why is this against the law? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-26 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Some drugs like OxyContin are only supposed to be available with a prescription, since they could be abused for recreational use.
  OK folks, has anyone out there actually purchased what they thought was a narcotic or benzo or other US DEA controlled substance through one of these 'pharmacies'? I'm actually curious. None of the people so inclined that I deal with on a daily basis have ever admitted to getting anything in the mail - it all comes from Fred, the local dealer.
  You would be setting yourself up for a bust by the Postal Service inspectors - the fact that it came through a dodgy address in Canada would be an easy tip off for these folks. You would be at the mercy of anybody who has a pill press, some starch, some food coloring and a copy of the Physician's Desk Reference. You couldn't even complain to Fred that you got cheated....
  Seems like a pretty stupid way to do things.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Why is this against the law? by causality · 2012-01-26 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The same reason it's illegal to import DVDs from Africa to sell in the US. The drug companies find they can sell drugs in the US for a LOT more than they can almost anywhere else, so they do. Allowing imports from other countries would defeat that.
  You see, when they say "globalism" and "global economy" what they mean is that corporations can off-shore to get the cheapest prices available for human labor.
  
  When humans want to do things the other way around by making an "off-shore" international purchase to get the cheapest prices available for goods, that's a crime and suddenly the government wants to enforce a brand of protectionism.
  
  It's standard hypocrisy.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
8. Re:Why is this against the law? by causality · 2012-01-26 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The reason DVDs in Africa are so cheap is that Africans can't afford to pay a month's salary for a DVD. The reason DVDs in the US are so much more expensive is that the movie companies need to have somebody pay for the making of the movies.
  "You see, the exploitation is for your own good, really!" Not buying it.
  
  The reason drugs in Canada are so cheap is that Canada has a single-payer system (the government) and they refuse to pay very much to get drugs. Since drug companies still want to get some money from Canada, they sell to Canada above cost but well below what it would take to recoup the R&D costs on the drugs. The reason drugs are so expensive in the US is that drug companies need to have somebody pay for R&D.
  
  US pharmaceutical companies spend a LOT more on advertising than they spend on R&D. Which makes no damned sense whatsoever, considering you are supposed to go to a medical professional who selects and prescribes a drug to you based on its proven medical effectiveness. Advertising to the public should have no place here, only merit and fitness for purpose.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  I am amazed to see so many Americans supporting and justifying what everyone else can clearly see as an unfair extortionist practice, supported by government with our own money nonetheless. What is it with the human psyche that we buy the corporate line so easily without any critical thinking at all ?
10. Re:Why is this against the law? by hideouspenguinboy · 2012-01-26 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't know the answer to this - I'm not trolling . . .
  Does the US have insanely high drug prices? Or does the rest of the world have insanely low ones? If the US suddenly paid what Canada was paying how much would Canada's prices end up increasing?
11. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  It seems you answered your own question:
  "Why is it illegal for Canadian drug companies to advertise their goods in the United States?"
  "This seems like yet another instance of the pharmaceutical lobby protecting their vast profits from competition."
12. Re:Why is this against the law? by JoeRobe · 2012-01-26 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, not that I'm disagreeing with the conclusions in that study, but I can't understand how the Pharma companies are blowing $57B on advertising. That seems absurdly large to me, but maybe I'm just not calibrated to costs of advertising.
  They also mention that 13.4% of sales revenue is being used for R&D. Is there any way that they're using non-sales revenue for this? I'm thinking investment returns, patent royalties, and maybe government grants could be used to support the R&D, and they're using sales money to pay for more marketing. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but I'm wondering if that's a possibility.
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
13. Re:Why is this against the law? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-26 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Advertising" covers many things. "Detailing" drugs, where a finely turned out salesman / woman comes over to the doctor's practice to leave samples, lunch, trinkets and promises of better things to come is expensive. Direct-to-Consumer ads are expensive. If they were honest about it, they would include sponsoring "educational" meetings for docs, but I think that is in another category.
  It does amaze me that big Pharma supposedly spends a bunch of money on research with precious little to show for it. I've not bothered to try to tease it out and I've actually not read about anyone else trying to do go through the numbers to see where the money goes. My gut feeling FWIW, is that either they're doing some shady accounting or their not thinking through their research programs well. They are so reliant on 'blockbuster' drugs that they are like gamblers looking for the big payout. Pulling on slots rather than playing poker. Tossing large amounts of money into a few areas hoping to get the big payout.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Why is this against the law? by Spectre · 2012-01-26 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  You see, when they say "globalism" and "global economy" what they mean is that corporations can off-shore to get the cheapest prices available for human labor.
  When humans want to do things the other way around by making an "off-shore" international purchase to get the cheapest prices available for goods, that's a crime and suddenly the government wants to enforce a brand of protectionism.
  It's standard hypocrisy.
  I've not thought about it this way before, so thank you.
  That is a great observation.
  Corporations don't want to be held captive to their local suppliers for labor, but they want their consumers held captive to their suppliers for goods and services.
  It doesn't really matter which way you believe governments should push that (global economy centric or local economy centric), but the same rules should apply to "real" people as to "virtual" people (corporations).
  
  --
  "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
15. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Canada does not allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs, unlike the USA. Advertising costs account for ~30% (if I remember right) of the drug costs in the USA. The higher legal risks, aka payouts due to a cock up, also increase the premiums.
  And then there is the really odd way the US health care system works, but that's another matter entirely.
16. Re:Why is this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  I can understand it being illegal to Import drugs improperly.
  Its not clear to my why it would be illegal to place a text advertisement on the internet. (Call it parody/satire and you can probably get away with offering contract killings) assuming such ads do not violate the terms of use of the ad network.
17. Re:Why is this against the law? by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Which in no way counters the person argument.
  RnD costs a lot of money, as does advertising; however you make the mistake of assuming the money comes from the same pot, and for all practical reasons, it does not.
  Here is the disconnect:
  "pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion."
  Money for RnD doesn't come from sales of the drug that's been released. Also, RnD is just one part of the overall drug creation.
  Promotion also includes the cost for samples. It's almost like it's a complex business!
  Now, lets look at this:
  “In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry,” says Gagnon. “We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
  SO theya re saying there needs to be a new way to estimates promotional expenditures. Fine, but then they used proprietary data they wont release? FAIL.
  "Thus, the study’s findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry,"
  No it doesn't. all it shows, using there special data know one can look at, is that pharmacy companies can spend more on advertising the RnD. They STILL do RnD, the still create life saving drugs.
  Look, there are two sides to Pharmaceutics.
  marketing, and research.
  They hire the best marketing people, and also the Best research people. They ahven't different goals.
  While I agree we need to go back to no medical advertising for a great many reasons, noting the a company spends a .lot on advertising doesn't prove that point.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The best government money can buy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:29 · Score: 1

This is a sting operation to reduce the number of people who order reasonably-priced drugs from Canada because the ones in US are too expensive even with insurance. The "no prescription" thing is just a pretext.
We should be able to import drugs at least from countries with equivalent quality control over the production as US. This is the single biggest missing piece of healthcare legislation no one wants to bring up because our pharmaceutical companies are addicted to the prices they can extract from this market.
If selling Canadian pharmaceuticals is illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:32 · Score: 1

maybe the criminals aren't the Canadian drug companies...
I'm looking at YOU U.S. healthcare!
Secrets secret are no fun by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:35 · Score: 1

I can't imagine the multi-billion dollar drug companies having a hand in funding a sting like this...
Doh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:40 · Score: 0

Can't we do just a little bit of evil?
from TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:41 · Score: 0

"Selling illegal narcotics is a felony, and Whitaker could have been sentence up to 65 years for his crimes. But thanks to his cooperation, he received a six-year sentence."
Hmm, how noble of him.
no prescription required? by Skapare · 2012-01-26 05:48 · Score: 1

How is "no prescription required" an obvious violation? This would have to be specific to each drug, and the person who is looking at it would have to know what drugs require a prescription. The average person depends on the pharmacist, drug retailer, or doctor, to know what requires a prescription. if it's on the shelf (even virtual), people assume it must be legal. If the government wants people to quit buying drugs from Canada, then it needs to mandate "fair and balanced" drug pricing.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by Gordonjcp · 2012-01-26 05:51 · Score: 2

And why would you want to buy them without a prescription? That seems pretty silly, really.
1. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by bky1701 · 2012-01-26 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not everyone can afford the alternative.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
2. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by coyote_oww · 2012-01-26 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This issue is not whether you have a prescription or not, but whether you need them. You can know you need drugs without having a prescription.
  In my own case, I am on some pricey immuno-suppressive drugs. One is Prograf, which is a brand name for Tacrolimus. I know I will need this in some quantity for the rest of my life. I am currently well insured, so it's not an issue. However, I would still need Tac if I was unemployed, and I would certainly consider getting it from a reputable non-US pharmacy. The prescription I have for this is issued annually - 90 days + 3 refills, or 30 days +11 refills, typically. Now, if i wanted to get really cheap, i'd stop seeing the doctor, get the lab work done on my own dime (i'd have to pay for it anyhow) and do my own analysis of the results (not rocket science, desired tac-levels for post-transplant are well established, and printed on the lab report. Then I'd buy drugs to fill the need at the lowest cost available internationally.
  Really, once you know your getting accurate dosing and purity, the government doesn't have much additional to offer.
  The idea that pharmacies should be forced to provide drugs cheaply outside the US, and Americans can fund R&D and profit margins is unfair. Those costs should be spread equally amongst all the developed nations of the world, not just the US. So, I am in favor of opening the borders, or imposing some stiff taxes on cost differentials between the US and other countries.
3. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by causality · 2012-01-26 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  And why would you want to buy them without a prescription? That seems pretty silly, really.
  That question is not relevant. The relevant question is, "if consenting adults want to do this with their own bodies and their own finances, why would you want to send men with guns after them to stop them by force or threat of force?" That's what needs justification.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
4. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  that is actually how you buy drugs in most of the wolrd. walk into a pharmacy and buy whatever you want for a few dollars.
5. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  I like that part where you assume that pharmaceutical research is only done in the US.
6. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by wrook · 2012-01-26 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  The idea that pharmacies should be forced to provide drugs cheaply outside the US, and Americans can fund R&D and profit margins is unfair. Those costs should be spread equally amongst all the developed nations of the world, not just the US.
  
  That doesn't make any sense. US drug companies aren't force to provide drugs at all. If it weren't profitable, they wouldn't do it. They don't charge only enough to recoup their costs plus a fair profit. They charge what the market will bear. The U.S. market, being serviced entirely by insurance, will bear an enormous amount. Canada, for instance, has a limited healthcare budget, so if the drugs are too expensive they simply say, "No". That is the reason drugs are cheaper in Canada.
  Canada honors US drug patents. It's not like Canadian drug companies are using US patents to make generic drugs. The US drug companies are choosing to sell at a lower cost because Canadians refuse to pay more.
  What is *truly* unfair is that the American system encourages high prices. First you have government granted monopolies in the form of patents. But on top of that, everybody is forced to get insurance. How do insurance companies make money? By investing the premiums before they are spent on claims. The higher the claims, the more they can justify high premiums, the more they can invest and the more profit they can make. Everyone in the US system benefits from higher prices -- except the poor schmuck who is ill.
  You don't need more protectionism to help this crazy industry. You need real government reform to remove the incentive for ridiculous prices.
7. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  You are a douche. Prescriptions SHOULD be optional. Why should anyone tell me what I can and cannot buy. Hell, it is easier to get a Romanian slave girl than it is to buy Canadian drugs in the US.
8. Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? by Gordonjcp · 2012-01-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to go to the doctor, get a prescription, go to the pharmacy, pick up your drugs?
  Why would I want to pay for them?
Here's why by bonch · 2012-01-26 05:52 · Score: 2

This has been covered every this story comes up on Slashdot. Unregulated, unlicensed pharmacies are dangerous--not only do people get drugs without a doctor's prescription, but there's no guarantee that the drugs are even the right drugs or that they've been handled properly. Counterfeit drugs, outdated drugs, contaminated drugs, mislabeled drugs--anything goes. And there are other problems, like the fact they can sell to minors or that there is nothing legally enforcing confidentiality like with a legitimate pharmacy. You complain about high drug prices, but there's nothing stopping some yahoo from selling a complete rip-off (and a potentially life-threatening one, as in the link). The foundation of a civilized society is some form of centralized regulation, or you just have total chaos as the people who callously fuck over other people win out.
1. Re:Here's why by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-01-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Canada has civilized regulation, as far as I know. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
2. Re:Here's why by hawguy · 2012-01-26 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  This has been covered every this story comes up on Slashdot. Unregulated, unlicensed pharmacies are dangerous--not only do people get drugs without a doctor's prescription, but there's no guarantee that the drugs are even the right drugs or that they've been handled properly. Counterfeit drugs, outdated drugs, contaminated drugs, mislabeled drugs--anything goes. And there are other problems, like the fact they can sell to minors or that there is nothing legally enforcing confidentiality like with a legitimate pharmacy. You complain about high drug prices, but there's nothing stopping some yahoo from selling a complete rip-off (and a potentially life-threatening one, as in the link). The foundation of a civilized society is some form of centralized regulation, or you just have total chaos as the people who callously fuck over other people win out.
  When my mother needed a drug for a medical condition she had several choices of drugs for that condition. She tried a common drug that had a reasonably priced generic equivalent in the USA (and was covered by her insurance). Not only did it not give adequate results, it had an interaction with another drug she was taken. There was another brand-name-only alternative drug that worked well, however, it was not covered under her insurance policy. Her out of pocket price for this drug was around $750/month in the quantities she needed. By purchasing online from a Canadian drug store (with further savings from purchasing larger pills than needed and splitting them 4 ways (splitting was approved by her doctor)), she was able to get her cost down to under $60/month.
  The drugs arrived in factory sealed packaging, her doctor said the pills looked legit and physically matched his sample pills, and followup tests showed that it was working as expected, so it really was the real thing. (he did not officially suggest or approve of her getting them from outside of the USA, but he knew it was her only affordable solution)
  Say what you will about foreign pharmacies, but sometimes they can be a lifesaver, literally.
3. Re:Here's why by mjwx · 2012-01-26 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  This has been covered every this story comes up on Slashdot. Unregulated, unlicensed pharmacies are dangerous--not only do people get drugs without a doctor's prescription, but there's no guarantee that the drugs are even the right drugs or that they've been handled properly.
  This is a sign of how screwed up the medical system is in the US.
  
  In Australia few would even think twice about using an online pharmacy in another country. Then again, very few pay $10,000 per year for health insurance. Going to a doctor is easy and simple, going to the pharmacy next to a doctor (location, location, location) is just as simple and often cheap as doctors and pharmacies dont hesitate to give out generics if they are available (pharmacies make more money from generics whilst selling them at lower prices, a win-win situation, no?). Of course plenty of Australians shop online for medications they use regularly, but there are plenty of legit options for this.
  
  Source on US insurance costs.. In Oz, you would need to earn A$400,000 and be dumb enough not to have private insurance to be paying A$10K per year (Medicare levy is 2.5% of income when earning above A$80,000, 1.5% below A$80,000). We've also got one of the best medical systems in the world.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Illegal != Wrong by tylersoze · 2012-01-26 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yet another example highlighting the fact that "illegal" does not necessarily equate to "wrong".
1. Re:Illegal != Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Not surprising.
  Illegal is an arbitrary determination, based on the whims of law makers and those that influence them.
  Wrong is a logical determination, based on axioms and their application to human action.
  The former is derived from fantasy, the latter from reality.
But wait, what about NAFTA? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 05:55 · Score: 0

Free Trade is good, right? What about NAFTA benefits for Joe Sixpack? If Joe needs meds, why can't he buy them from Canada. (noted with sarcasm, we all know NAFTA is for the benefit of corporations, not you).
So much for "Don't be evil" by iriemon · 2012-01-26 05:55 · Score: 1

I'm not surprised. Money is corrosive to good.
How about we instead turn our rightful indignation by melted · 2012-01-26 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

How about we instead turn our rightful indignation against Big Pharma and ask why the fuck is it not legal to buy the same drugs from Canada for less? When I moved to the US, I was shocked by how badly US residents are being gouged when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Nowhere else in the world do drugs cost as much as they do in the US. In some places the same exact drugs by the same exact companies are sold at 1/5th to 1/10th the price.
This isn't friendly advice. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:10 · Score: 0

This isn't friendly advice. I'm just saying: You're really starting to look like a kook. I normally don't read the post author names, but your writing style was distinctive enough that I could tell a few posts were written by you. Giveaways are: tilting at windmills, short broken paragraphs, and the use of repeated Inappropriately-Capitalized phrases.
Truer than you know by TiggertheMad · 2012-01-26 06:10 · Score: 2

Back in college I worked for a very large computer retailer. One of the things the managers there did, was take hardware that they couldn't sell, and just store it in the back room. They wouldn't discount it, because their bonuses were dependent on the margin they maintained for the quarter, and if you dump a bunch of laptops at a discount, it adds up very quickly. Anyway, this went on for years, with each manager just piling up the problem for the next guy to deal with, before rotating into some new position at a new store. Eventually, someone in corporate caught wind of this, and took some steps to dump the old hardware. They put it on sale one weekend for a few hours before yanking it, because even a few hours of discount caused a ping on the corporate servers when they detected a sharp drop in margin at the store. That caused whatever corporate flunky to get cold feet, and start sweating his bonus for the quarter. So, back to the warehouse it all went.

I don't know what was more appalling, the stupidity or the greed. AMERICA, LIVE THE DREAM!

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:Truer than you know by St.Creed · 2012-01-26 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid margin calculation. They should have calculated the margin over product shipped to the store, not product sold. That would have ended that practice right there.
  Measure the wrong KPI's, get the wrong outcomes.
  And I don't blame the executives for responding to this the way they did. If you were measured based on lines of code produced, for say 50% of your income, YOU would find a way to pad the crap out of the code real fast too (and leave asap too, likely) - leaving your replacement with a maintenance nightmare. Tough luck for him. And I know I would do it too - if my management wants to measure me on a stupid measurement, they get what they deserve: silly results. If possible, in my favor.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Google was guilty, and they admitted it by Animats · 2012-01-26 06:25 · Score: 1

Read the original article. Read Google's non-prosecution agreement with DOJ, in which Google admits to felonies and agrees to pay $500 million to avoid criminal prosecution. All this has been out in the public record for months.
This was not about "Canadian pharmacies". DOJ was led to investigate Google because they were investigating some Mexican drug dealer who had an "online pharmacy" as a side business. DOJ set up a blatantly illegal web site, "www.SportsDrugs.net, designed to look "as if a Mexican drug lord had built a website to sell HGH and steroids.". Then they used a convicted con man to negotiate with Google AdWords sales reps to promote it. Google reps not only accepted the ads, they helped with getting around Google's automatic checks. Google even extended credit to the phony site.
The DOJ tried even more blatant sites, and Google accepted the ads. All the communications with Google were recorded, of course, and presented to a grand jury. Peter Neronha, the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island, who headed this effort, said "We simply know from the documents we reviewed and witnesses we interviewed that Larry Page knew what was going on".
Google is on probation for two years. One slip-up in the drug area, and DOJ, at their sole discretion, can re-institute the criminal charges.
Has Google cleaned up their act? Search for "no prescription diet pills" and see what ads show up.
1. Re:Google was guilty, and they admitted it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  > Google admits to felonies and agrees to pay $500 million to avoid criminal prosecution.
  Sign this admission, or go to jail until to die and rot. Yessir, that's a credible confession.
2. Re:Google was guilty, and they admitted it by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but that's not the issue. Did you not understand the headline?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Sting operation? Is this actually legal in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:38 · Score: 0

Here in Germany, you can't prosecute somebody, when the crime was only committed because of you being the partner in crime, creating the situation in the first place.
Even when you're the police! (I'd say: Especially when you're the police.)
That's why companies like WrongHaven can't do shit here, when they are caught being the same people as the suing media Mafia.
I thought this was illegal in the US too.
Oh well, nowadays, US laws seem to be more like the opposite of what's right and wrong. :/
Re:How about we instead turn our rightful indignat by 0123456 · 2012-01-26 06:39 · Score: 1

How about we instead turn our rightful indignation against Big Pharma and ask why the fuck is it not legal to buy the same drugs from Canada for less?
If it's not legal, then the US government must have pased a law banning it. So how about you instead turn your rightful indignation against them?
Chopper Sick balls by trolman · 2012-01-26 06:40 · Score: 0

Did Lamar Smith get mad about his SOPA/RIAA censorhip bill? I can hear him saying to the justice department "chopper, sick balls."
1. Re:Chopper Sick balls by larry+bagina · 2012-01-26 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. So mad, in fact, he invented a time machine and went back to 2009 and asked the DOJ to fuck them over. Google would never suspect that their August 2011 fine was related to their future opposition of SOPA, which wasn't even introduced until two months later.
  Revenge is a dish best served preemptively, it seems.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
2. Re:Chopper Sick balls by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-26 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously the original entrapment scheme wasn't a response to Google helping us fight SOPA, but this new release of information to try to make them look bad and generate more negative press certainly could be.
3. Re:Chopper Sick balls by shiftless · 2012-01-26 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Revenge is a dish best served preemptively, it seems.
  Of course. This why the U.S. puts people in jail for driving without insurance, or for smoking a reefer in the privacy of their own homes. Why wait for someone to cause actual harm, when you can just arrest everyone who "might potentially" somehow harm someone?
4. Re:Chopper Sick balls by trolman · 2012-01-27 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you are a dweeb. I would guess that there are plenty of FBI and Justice Department case files on Google. When you want to 'go after' someone it is a good practice to get a bunch of 'bad stuff' on them and then use it when the time is right. See J. Edgar Hoover
5. Re:Chopper Sick balls by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-27 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Who said the FBI was behind it? It looks to me like the Wall Street Journal (now under new management).
Let the Free Market decide! by tekrat · 2012-01-26 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Come on all you Ron Paul supporters, let's hear it. We *should* be able to buy Canadian drugs at 1/10 the price of what we're being ripped off in the USA for the same crap.
And before you bring up safety/prescriptions/handling/lifethreating issues as a factor, consider this: We buy food from China, which has far less controls regarding safety than Canada does.
That Apple Juice you're buying in Walmart? Madde from Chinese grown Apples. Who knows what those apples were exposed to, what toxins are in the ground the were grown in, how they were handled/processed and what else the factory that makes this juice also makes?
The Apple Juice you buy in Walmart could be as deadly, or even more deadly than any Canadian Pharmacy or drug "internet purchase".
The *ONLY* reason that drugs are as heavily regulated as they are in this country is to protect Corporate interests (aka BigPharma). There is NO OTHER reason. Any other excuse you've been given by the talking heads on TV is window dressing.
And if we had a real free market economy, sure, some people would die, but that's the way free market economies work. Frankly, that's the way this economy works as well, regulated or not.
Think about how many people die because they are denied health care due to insurance rates, or they can't afford the medication they've been prescribed.
No matter which way you go, people are going to die, that's just a reality. But to say that you're saving lives by not allowing Canadian Pharmacies to sell in the USA is a complete lie.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Let the Free Market decide! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  I thought one reason the drugs are expensive is that drug companies tries to recoup the cost the research cost faster. It is similar to the new movie cost more to watch..
2. Re:Let the Free Market decide! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  What in the world makes you think that Ron Paul supporters favor restrictions on importing drugs from Canada?
  As long ago as 2003 Ron Paul stated:
  “Drug reimportation is critical to lowering prices. Reimportation allows American consumers, particularly seniors, to benefit from worldwide price competition. It's outrageous that the FDA does not permit U.S. citizens to reimport drugs that sell for 30 to 300 percent less outside our borders. The pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to profit by this government-enforced price fixing. How much longer should American consumers be expected to pay much higher prices for identical drugs available in Europe, Canada, and Mexico for a fraction of the cost?”
3. Re:Let the Free Market decide! by buybuydandavis · 2012-01-26 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Come on all you Ron Paul supporters, let's hear it. We *should* be able to buy Canadian drugs at 1/10 the price of what we're being ripped off in the USA for the same crap.
  I went looking for just that at Ron Paul's site the other day. He did make some mention of the cost of medicine being driven up by licensing, but I have yet to see him come out against prescription drug laws. Apparently the good Doc's libertarianism only goes so far.
4. Re:Let the Free Market decide! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe, just maybe, there's been enough abuse in the past & present (inside & outside the USA) that regulating drugs & drug testing isn't so bad? Now the cost of drugs is one thing, but to rail against the regulations of testing?
  Sometimes regulation has a reason behind it - companies are irresponsible when left to their own devices.
5. Re:Let the Free Market decide! by datavirtue · 2012-01-27 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, the apple juice you buy anywhere is made from Chinese apples--check the label. China's fruit production out-weighs every other country by several orders of magnitude. Second in line of fruit production is the US, which isn't even close to China's levels.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Rationalization by MikeMo · 2012-01-26 06:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

I am amazed by the lengths to which people on this site will go to rationalize Google's behavior. It's not the morality of advertising drugs that is at question here, it's the morality of knowingly allowing something which is illegal. If Page really knew (as the GOVERNMENT, not the conman, asserts) that they were accepting ads that explicitly stated "no prescription required" then he knowingly broke the law for profit. Plain and simple.

Whether it SHOULD be illegal has no bearing on the issue.
1. Re:Rationalization by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Morality and legality are two different things. By your logic, all the people who harbored jews (yeah I know, Godwin) in nazi Germany against the law were doing something immoral.
  When the law forces you to buy only super-expensive drugs to keep your health, it is not immoral to provide an alternate much cheaper source even if not legal. So you can stop being so amazed now.
2. Re:Rationalization by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Whether it SHOULD be illegal has no bearing on the issue.
  Utter bollocks. OF COURSE it has bearing on the issue! We're deciding whether Google was acting ethically, not whether it was acting legally!
3. Re:Rationalization by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  True, but we don't know. TO me the real interesting bit is the fact that huff-po had this article two days before. Except the WSJ added paragraphs, some of which make no sens in the article.
  I think the guy copied the article and the just added stuff to make it seem relevant. Clearly he didn't do any research.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
reality is triggering this by circletimessquare · 2012-01-26 06:57 · Score: 1

power corrupts
it is only a matter of time before google goes from nerd darling to abusive apparatus
it is the inevitable arc of all human enterprise
until another google rises, be prepared for the betrayals

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:reality is triggering this by datavirtue · 2012-01-27 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  it is the inevitable arc of all human enterprise
  No, it is not. Humans have the power to do what they want, and there are many corporations that are not "evil." Grow up.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
It wasn't Larry Page by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:58 · Score: 0

This was all orchestrated by that David Drummond asshole.
1. Re:It wasn't Larry Page by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, David "Cardboard Nigger" Drummond, as he is known among his reports in the MTV campus. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this was all his work. His not only an arrogant asshole but one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever had to work with.
  --
  Jordyn
consider this by alphatel · 2012-01-26 07:37 · Score: 3, Informative

In all your yapping about who's right, wrong or has to support big pharma think of this:

Number of Google employees that the government considered sending to prison: 0
Number of people selling less than 1 ounce of marijuana sentenced to federal prison: 5,452
Number of drug arrests per minute in the USA: 25

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Legal != Moral by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-26 07:37 · Score: 1

I don't know enough about what's going on with Google to really tell one way or the other; as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
That aside, it appears that you are conflating legal with moral. The two have some overlap, but it bears noting that there are yawning chasms between them in some areas.

... it's the morality of knowingly allowing something which is illegal...
You seem to be saying that an illegal act is by definition immoral. By that argument, it would be immoral to have a bathtub in your house in Virginia, or to wear high heels in Carmel, CA, and it would very nearly have been immoral to have properly round circles in Indiana. There are tons of laws on the books that are still technically in force, but have passed into irrelevance and remain as a sort of legal appendectomy-in-waiting.
The converse would be that a legal act is by definition moral. By that argument, pre-US-Civil-War slavery was perfectly moral in the South, because it was perfectly legal. I think most everyone here can see the logical failings of this proposition.

Whether it SHOULD be illegal has no bearing on the issue.
If you're going to argue about the morality of what someone has done, sure, the issue of whether the action *should be* legal/illegal has no bearing on the issue of whether or not the action is moral. But by the same token, whether their action *is* actually legal or illegal also has no bearing—"legal" and "moral" are orthogonal qualities.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
1. Re:Legal != Moral by bennomatic · 2012-01-26 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of the interaction at the end of the movie, "The Untouchables". When a reporter asked Eliot Ness what he would do if prohibition were repealed, he answered, "Probably have a drink."
  
  (Note, I understand that the movie was based on real people and events, but I quote that comment as being from the movie because it's my sole source for the interchange, and I'm not sure if the real Elliot Ness actually said it.)
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
There's a reason why we have pharmacists by Sycraft-fu · 2012-01-26 08:01 · Score: 1

Ever notice that if you go to a pharmacy, even if there's nobody in front of you, it takes like 10-15 minutes to fill a prescription (we are presuming it wasn't filled before hand here)? They aren't being assholes or anything, it is that they take time to make sure things are done right. They check to make sure you aren't taking other meds that interact (doctors don't know all about drug interactions necessarily, pharmacists do) that it is the right drug from the right bottle, that it is not expired, the correct does, and so on. Usually a pharmacy tech will prep the prescription, and then the pharmacist will check it to make sure it is right.
All these check and rechecks are important, because fucking up can mean death. It'd better well be the right little white pill in that bottle. Hence there is a lot of training, and a lot of care put in to making sure it is done right.
You don't want that bypassed.
1. Re:There's a reason why we have pharmacists by grcumb · 2012-01-26 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ever notice that if you go to a pharmacy, even if there's nobody in front of you, it takes like 10-15 minutes to fill a prescription (we are presuming it wasn't filled before hand here)? They aren't being assholes or anything, it is that they take time to make sure things are done right. They check to make sure you aren't taking other meds that interact (doctors don't know all about drug interactions necessarily, pharmacists do) that it is the right drug from the right bottle, that it is not expired, the correct does, and so on. Usually a pharmacy tech will prep the prescription, and then the pharmacist will check it to make sure it is right.
  My god, you're right!
  Fellow Canadians! We've got to find out more about these 'pharmacy' things! There's not a minute to lose! Stop your seal hunting, feed the dog team later - American lives are at stake! Maybe the US can send us a navy Pharmacy Ship until we can build our own....
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
silly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:24 · Score: 0

slashtard - a little late to the party, aren't you? this story has been out there for a while
Why are Enzyte commercials legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:33 · Score: 0

And those lipo-whatever things, that are just fiber tablets?
Why aren't the TV networks held to the same standard, for the products they allow to advertised?
What about Enzyne ads by walterbyrd · 2012-01-26 08:42 · Score: 1

I think that was proven to be a scam. The ads went on for years. Where the networks sued? Also Lipazine - or whatever they called it.
Can google be held responsible for ads placed by third parties? Is craigslist responsible for the craigslist killer? What about Nigerian email scams? Are the email providers responsible for those? What about telephone scams? Are the phone responsible?
Just because you settle a lawsuit does not mean that you are admitting to doing anything wrong. Sometimes it's easier, and cheaper, to pay instead of fight.
1. Re:What about Enzyne ads by swillden · 2012-01-26 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you settle a lawsuit does not mean that you are admitting to doing anything wrong. Sometimes it's easier, and cheaper, to pay instead of fight.
  Not for $500M. If you settle rather than fight over that much money, it's because you're afraid you might lose. Maybe in court, maybe due to public opinion, but there's no way you spend $500M to avoid the cost of a court battle which will never reach even 10% of that figure.
  Google screwed up. Google admitted they screwed up. Maybe out of greed, maybe because they didn't realize it was a crime, maybe because they thought it shouldn't be a crime... who knows? But it's pretty clear that they were in the wrong. So they paid up, and hopefully are now being more careful.
  (Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I don't know anything about this subject other than what I've read in the public media. I don't speak for Google and they don't speak for me.)
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Another day, another smear by walterbyrd · 2012-01-26 08:44 · Score: 1

I guess Slashdot had to approve another google smear story. Not like we can go 24 hours without one. Think I'm kidding? See for yourself.
Or because it is an organized anti-Google campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:45 · Score: 0

One user controls several Slashdot accounts (bonch / SharkLazer / Overly Critical Guy) and submits lots of anti-Google stories which get published. The aim is to get negative stories published on Slashdot, or to submit summaries that sound neutral (e.g. Google "tries to standardize Android") and then get first post to bash Google, or to add negative summary comments eg. Google Testing Completely Revamped Look gets "Considering that European Commission is examining claims of Google downgrading rival websites and U.S. senators are calling FTC to inspect Google for unfair practices, the move comes at a surprising time." Gaining a Remote Shell on Android gets "Android market place has been plagued with countless amount of trojaned apps".
Look at these recent submissions! Who has this much free time and motivation? To spend all day finding anti-Google stories and submitting them to Slashdot?
bonch: Google Starts 'End Piracy, Not Liberty' Petition Samsung Moves To Reduce Android Dependence, Apple Closes Marketshare Gap With Android, Apple Beats Android In U.S. Marketshare, Apple Closes In On Android Marketshare, Why Android smartphones are larger than the iPhone, Google Admits Wrongdoing In Mocality Scanda, U.S. Carriers Don't Want Stock Android Phones, iOS Closes Gap With Android Marketshare In U.S., Google Sponsors Blog Posts To Market Chrome, Java ME Surpasses Android As #2 Mobile Internet OS, Galaxy S And Galaxy Tab Won't Get Android 4.0, No Such Thing As Android, Only Android-Compatible, Android Chief Andy Rubin Deletes Openness Tweet, Android Update Alliance Is Already Dead, App Developers Betting On iOS Over Android, Europe Accuses Google Of Monopoly Abuse, Samsung Smartphone Sales Report Flawed, Google Reaches $500 Million Settlement With Feds, FTC Probes Android And Google Search,
Viagra? by Oyjord · 2012-01-26 09:02 · Score: 1

I just want to know where I can SAFELY buy some Viagra online without a prescription. Surely a Yank can find some luck in Canada. However, maybe Googling it now isn't the way to go....
CEOs making bad decisions? by auzer · 2012-01-26 10:00 · Score: 1

Sounds like they need...a bailout!
try again. by geekoid · 2012-01-26 10:20 · Score: 1

That's not the question at hand. The Question is :Did Larry Page know about it?
DO you have an actual link of the prosecutor saying that, besides the article? because it doesn't appear in any documents about the Chief executives agreeing to let this happen.
Sorry, didn't mean to go to the source and mellow your harsh.
Presenting lines from the article on now way couters my 2 points:
1) The articel is poorly written, and ripped onff from the hufpo.
2) No evidence outside what that con man claims exists that Larry page knew about this. Since he is a con man, and looking for any reason to get out early, I need better evidence. and YOU should too.
The Newspaper Paradox:
When there is an article about something you know about, it's wrong.
When there is an article outside your knowledge, it newspaper is 100% correct.
I mean you as in whomever reading the paper, not just YOU.
I would also like to point out that the author makes money form just this sort of controversy, so not exactly a disinterested 3rd party looking to minimize bias.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:try again. by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-26 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  DO you have an actual link of the prosecutor saying that, besides the article? because it doesn't appear in any documents about the Chief executives agreeing to let this happen.
  Jeez, the guy himself could whisper it in your ear and you'd still deny it :-)
  Like I said in an other comment: we'll never know because they settled out of court and any evidence there was (if any) will now not come out. So Google is de facto innocent. It'll now likely never be proven either way but they'll have to live with the speculation which is the downside of settling instead of fighting I guess.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Why? by Guspaz · 2012-01-26 10:28 · Score: 1

I get the whole illegal-no-prescription-drug-ads-are-bad thing, but I've never really understood the American obsession with trying to stop pharmacies from exporting to the US. I guess the price controls that the government puts on drugs wouldn't jive with free trade agreements or something, but since they're not sold below cost, there's nothing preventing US companies from lowering prices to compete.
Buying from Canada should not be the answer! by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-01-26 10:42 · Score: 1

How about we instead turn our rightful indignation against Big Pharma and ask why the fuck is it not legal to buy the same drugs from Canada for less?
Why isn't it possible to buy them at a competitive price from the local pharmacy?
It's OK ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:03 · Score: 0

Larry didn't inhale.
Evil Google and the Cannucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 11:35 · Score: 0

Damn those evil Canadians trying to sell poor unsuspecting American consumers their second rate prescription pharmaceuticals and on the 200th anniversary of their defeat of US troops in 1812 too...how dare they?
If you believe that Canadian pharmaceuticals are made in different factories than US ones, I have this really interesting proposition for you...there's this bridge you see that stretches from Manhattan to Brooklyn and it just so happens it's for sale and you can have it for a fire sale price...call me!
65 years in jail? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 17:36 · Score: 0

"Selling illegal narcotics is a felony, and Whitaker could have been sentence up to 65 years for his crimes."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399359,00.asp
65 years for what's practically a victimless crime? No wonder our jails are so full (of victimless criminals).
Page had personal knowledge of the operation? by microphage · 2012-01-26 23:16 · Score: 1

"The government's case also contained potentially embarrassing allegations that top Google executives, including co-founder Larry Page, were told about legal problems with the drug ads.

Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island .. Mr. Neronha declined to detail the evidence, which was presented in secret to a federal grand jury"