n reference to e-book Chapter 2, problem 11 (found on e-book, p. 73), discuss the questions presented in Cases and Problems 2-11.
Are there situations in which a company, for the common good, must give up the economic advantage accorded by intellectual property laws? How should the Bayer credo – Bayer: Success Through Expertise with Responsibility – impact its corporate responsibility in the anthrax situation? In your discussion, make reference to the Social Responsibility of Corporations Matrix, Exhibit 2.2 (p. 48) and the models of business ethics (found in e-book, pp. 47–49).

I agree with everyone that Bayer should not think about its profit motive and help the society. What happened shows a really different picture where government partially thought about the citizens, Pls check this link http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=723 ..

v I believe there are times when a company needs to set aside economic advantage to help society. As good example is during war or national emergency. Usually during these times companies set aside their economic advantages to back the nation. Car manufactures start producing military vehicles and the patents they hold can make the vehicles better for societal good. Since the rules of a free market are essentially but on hold and placed under government control, the patents became less leverage. In the same sense, so should Bayer. Bayer's corporate policy seems to oriented towards the Enlightened Self-Interest as evident in the order of listing (stock holders first). In this instance Bayer seemed to follow government regulations (especially when it came to their patent on apirin) and believe that serving society as a whole benefits the stockholders. They do state that they have a responsibility to the community but it is listed last. Their moral question should have been server, the larger society first and then then the