Business primary motive

1a)Every business' primary motive is to make profit. Here, the question is whether a company or a business should give up its economic advantage at the time of the crisis? Does anything change at the time of the crisis for a business? According to me, yes. Though every business aims to make profits, they have a social responsibility of helping the society, reaching out to it's community people and to give back to society at times of crisis.

Coming to the case of Bayer, Canada and the US were facing shortage of the 'Cipra' drug and Bayer should have let their profits go and helped the governments by providing the drug.

Companies should follow humanist theories during times of national crisis.

But we also see that Bayer was able to fulfill the orders and need for the drugs at all times. Though, Bayer have a social responsibility, it was uncalled for Canada and US to suspend the Patent rights.

What ethical norm is central to the court’s decision in this case? 2.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Business

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

What fact seems especially powerful in shaping the court’s reasoning? 3. What reasons does the court provide for upholding the respondent’s disbarment? 4. Outline the reasons why Egil Krogh, Jr., believed he should not be disbarred by the disciplinary board of the State of California.

1b)Though the governments always have the power to take decisions such as these - impacting the patent law, there are regulations which they have to follow. Government should take these extreme measures if and only if it results in a major loss or causes health hazards to its citizens.

Government should take such measures as a last resort, because they set the tone. If the government and the lawmakers themselves stop following the rules, then it is foolish to expect the civil society to maintain law and order in the society as the saying goes " As the ruler, so the ruled".

In this case, if the government had impacted the patent rights in some way, Bayer had a solid ground to take legal action against the infringement. They had enough sales in the previous year, they had fulfilled the orders and requirements of the drugs in an efficient manner.

"35 U.S. Code § 296 ­ Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents a) In General.— Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for infringement of a patent under section 271, or for any other violation under this title. (b) Remedies.— In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any private entity. Such remedies include damages, interest, costs, and treble damages under section 284, attorney fees under section 285, and the additional remedy for infringement of design patents under section 289."