decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The unregulated compounding pharmacy with the fungus tainted steroid comes to mind. | 397 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Err... really?!
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM EST
Dude that fungus was because regulations were
removed, and they are now trying to come up
with some that would have given the government
the right to step in and prevent.

Do you work for the Koch brothers, by the
way?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Err... really?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:58 PM EST
Err... really?!
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, November 18 2012 @ 01:46 PM EST
The problem basically boils down to two factors ...

1) The legal environment nowadays pretty much REQUIRES public companies to act
like sociopaths.

2) Sociopaths don't care if they hurt other people.

Add to that, sociopathic companies and sociopathic management feed off each
other, then what do you expect? Management nowadays has power without
responsibility - which is why employees and pensioners are getting fleeced while
the top guys walk off with the cash.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Err... really?!
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 18 2012 @ 02:05 PM EST
Now you are going too far.

The cell phone issue is precisely because the
air waves are a public asset that the government
tries to regulate to make sure that it isn't
misused strictly for private ends. Because the
cell phone companies don't own the air waves.

And regulation is certainly appropriate for
public assets that private companies are allowed
to make money from. Especially because people
can die if they don't do it well. Keep in mind
that your rugged individualism only works if
everyone is skilled and smart and caring and
flush with enough money to stock up and plan
ahead. In a country with at least 8% unemployment
that means that somebody has to look out for
those people who simply can't do those things.
Their children don't get to take care of themselves.
If their parents can't, now what? Let them die?

Surely you don't mean that.

If you do, leave Groklaw please and never come
back.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Err... really?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 01:23 AM EST
  • Err... really?! - Authored by: Jim Olsen on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 08:21 AM EST
    • Err... really?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 11:39 AM EST
    • Err... really?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 09:59 PM EST
  • Err... really?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM EST
The unregulated compounding pharmacy with the fungus tainted steroid comes to mind.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 07:59 PM EST
fixed that for you. FDA had tried for years to get oversight
of these companies and been told "no, we don't want you
regulating small companies" (since "compounding pharmacies"
were supposedly only doing compounding for local doctors) -
except there weren't really any regs that said they couldn't
do mass compounding.

Once more it's not the regulation, but the lack thereof that
created the problem.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )