January 26, 2005

• Even more condensed version: Abbott - Double-dipping: government grant money and inflated drug prices. AIG - Fraud, followed by a government deal. Coca-Cola - Violent union-busting in Colombia. Dow - A history of pollution (not sure what they did to make the 2004 list). GlaxoSmithKline - Publishing misleading information on Paxil. Hardees - The first 2000-calorie fast food meal. Merck - Up to 139,000 alleged dead due to withheld data on Vioxx. McWane - Abysmal safety standards. Riggs Bank - Money laundering. Wal-Mart - Union-busting. It would be interesting to see a complete list that isn't necessarily limited to ten bad companies.
• Oh... I forgot... ) ). Thanks! Enjoyed the list.
• In related news, Monsanto extends tyranny over food supply:

  As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. . . The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection.' The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal. . . Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified seeds from American corporations.). These GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, and shared freely like agricultural 'open source.'"

• The GM seeds often don't produce a good second crop. Which crops are these? GM Maize is wide-spred, as is cotton (cotton is one of the few GM varieties that really is better), but I had heard that wheat and other staples either haven't been GM'd much, or didn't take to it. Of course, they might not be talking GM, just basic variety breeding (though same intellectual property laws might apply). But in response to bringing these laws to Iraq: this is NOT shiny.
• The American Administrator ... Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law Nice that we can circumvent that pesky legislature.
• Okay, I can accept all 10 of those... except for Hardees. wtf. I may be mistaken, but I don't think Hardees is misleading the consumer into thinking that their Monster Burger is a healthy choice. I think they pass it off as a rather indulgent choice. You'd have to be pretty damn stupid to think that a huge burger somehow works in your diet plan. So what, are we now supposed to condemn companies because they tempt us? Have we totally surrendered our self-will to the corporations and the government? Give it a rest; Hardees is doing nothing wrong at all.
• I am with you on Hardee's. Shouldn't every alcohol and cigarette company make it ahead of them? Anyway, great link. I look forward to reading the whole thing later.
• I was about to say the exact same thing about Hardees. I mean, all the others coerce, or are violent, or blatantly fraudulent. And then Hardees makes....food. How many restaurant chains offer a 2000 calorie dinner if they're -- say -- a steakhouse? Why isn't anyone going after the 1+ pound steaks and loaded baked potatoes? Is it okay to eat like a glutton if you're rich? Do we only want to take the option for high-calorie food from people who have little money?
• Paul Bremer, doing the truly important work in Iraq.
• Wedge, that Iraq link is front-page worthy. ...and just when I thought I couldn't be more disillusioned.
• Good crunchy list. Missing are those companies that provide loans at predatory interest rates. But also it wouldn't it be nice (he said in a small voice) to have a list of the ten BEST Corporations??
• Ten best corporations? Kinda like having a list of the ten cleanest garbage dumps. Just saying.
• I agree with rocket88 - that post on Iraq and seeds is definitely worthy of its own post, Wedge. If you don't mind, I'm going to write about it elsewhere, too. This was a good post too, thanks. Good reading (well, if depressing counts as good.)
• Wedge, I'm sorry to put it so crudely, but the post about Iraq and seeds is absolute nonsense. Where shall I start? Transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. Patents are valid in one country at a time. Seeds patented in the United States are not necessarily patented elsewhere, and almost certainly not in Iraq (Monsanto would have had to go to the Iraqi Patent Office, if there was a functioning one, and pay the necessary fees...violating the embargo). And once your invention is disclosed, you can't patent it anymore. So, even if "international standards of protection" are introduced, if the seeds weren't patented in Iraq, they will still not be protected. Also, the "patenting of ancestral knowledge" outrage is somewhat overblown. If you can show a prior use, any kind of prior use, of a patented invention, you can get it invalidated. Only US patent legislation is a bit special about that, but elsewhere in the world it is quite straightforward (so, no Amazon Indians losing the right to heal with traditional medicines). The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal. . . And how can saving unpatented, not genetically modified seeds be suddenly illegal? Nonsense. GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations Well, yes, obviously. I can't think of any GM seed modified from a wild crop. It makes more sense to start from a staple crop, and that means "seeds developed over thousands of generations by traditional farmers". Then you make a genetic modification and if it is new, inventive (or "non-obvious", in the US) and useful, you may get a patent. Which will then cover the new seed only, not those from which it was modified. Conclusion: If it is too outrageous to be true, then it probably is. I know, I know, that principle has probably been superseded by the Bush administration, but it is still valid in this particular case. And: No weapon manufacturers in that top 10? Come on...The list is a bit cheap. It's a pity, because it is fundamentally a good idea. Transparency International ranks countries according to how corrupt they are perceived to be by businessmen. I'd certainly like to see a parallel ranking of businesses according to how corrupting they are perceived to be by politicians and civil servants...
• Nomen said: "Ten best corporations? Kinda like having a list of the ten cleanest garbage dumps. Just saying." A list of the ten cleanest garbage dumps would be a useful thing. How else are you going to provide examples for the other dumps to follow?
• This Monsanto angle is a hoot. I mean seriously, do you think Monsanto is going to send someone anytime soon to check on someone's frickin' seeds in the middle of a WAR ZONE? And even if peace broke out and I was an iraqi farmer, i'd say let the re-seeding begin, let 'em come find me. Eat that Monsanto! Monsanto can do about as much about seed use as the RIAA can do about music piracy.
• Wedge, I'm sorry to put it so crudely, but the post about Iraq and seeds is absolute nonsense. Where shall I start? Have you perused The Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 81: Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law? Because it seems like you have totally missed the point. The article is about the US rewriting Iraqi GMO IP laws. Previously in Iraq, if you bought the seeds, you could breed from them. As noted, most of the advancements that Monsanto's GMO seeds rely on were the result of thousands of years of selective practices by generations of farmers. That Monsanto adds in one feature and sell the seeds is akin to taking a large GPL program, adding in one feature and selling the binary without source. Assuming that I even subscribe to your notion that biological processes and/or genetic information should or "can" be considered protected IP (I don't. It's absurd.), your point of 'prior use' is moot:

  - Iraq is still war torn and the country is in relative chaos: There aren't many seeds. Many of the fields have withered and died because there hasn't been enough irrigation, or money to pay the labor to support the fields. Grain houses have been destroyed. Crops have been contaminated. The agricultural economy has collapsed... hard to sell your produce when there are warplanes bombing your village. The US solution to this problem is to provide GM seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter... the economy has been devastated, and they need to take whatever they can get. - Even if an Iraqi farmer had a good supply of non-GMO seeds, his crop is still in jeopardy. Once stray Monsanto pollen(tm) blows into his field and starts forming viable offspring, he is totally fucked. If he doesn't pay Monsanto's licensing fees, he's breaking the law. He's a thief. And if, as jb suggested, they are using special "terminator" technology, he might soon be left with a sterile field of GMO crops, through no fault of his own. Curious that it is Monsanto that benefits from these new IP laws, effectively using them as viral licensing schemes.

  I'm not sure what is more ironic... that Iraq, the cradle of civilization, is not charging Monsanto w/ IP infringement for stealing thousands of years' worth of field research; or the fact that we are turning free-markets into a fascist command economies under the guise of "spreading freedom"?
• Wedge, I have been through that law. Have you? In fact, have you followed your original link? Because it in turn sourced its info from uruknet, which in turn sourced it from Slashdot, which in turn sourced it from an agricultural NGO called GRAIN. And, during this whole process a lot of information has been lost or distorted with nobody having much of a look at the law in question or asking any expert for an interpretation. First of all, well, this isn't about either patents or GM plants. There are a number of different types of IP rights, and this whole fuss seems to be about the introduction of one, namely Breeder's Rights, which didn't previously exist under Iraqi law. It is, however, not a patent, but a rather different kind of animal. You can (with some legal juggling) get a patent for the process of genetically modifying a plant, as well as for the product of that process (that is, the GM plant). Breeder's Rights are however applicable for all new varieties, be they obtained by genetic modification or by good, old-fashioned selective breeding. The protection is, however, rather different to that accorded by a patent, and rather narrower. As for this old chestnut: Even if an Iraqi farmer had a good supply of non-GMO seeds, his crop is still in jeopardy. Once stray Monsanto pollen(tm) blows into his field and starts forming viable offspring, he is totally fucked. If he doesn't pay Monsanto's licensing fees, he's breaking the law. You are quite wrong. This meme was started by the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case, in which a Canadian farmer was fined for saving seed from fields contaminated with Monsanto seed that had found its way there from neighbouring fields. I read through that judgment, and found out that it was based on solid statistical evidence from Monsanto that it was nearly impossible for Schmeiser to have replanted the proportion of GM seed he used without knowingly selecting it. I am not particularly happy about the current state of IP legislation, but that is also why I think that informing the public accurately about the subject is pretty important.
• No weapon manufacturers in that top 10? Come on... Nothing wrong with them....it's their customers who are murderous tyrants.
• Wedge, I have been through that law. Have you? Hello!! That's why I linked the above PDF from the CPA. And how does the fact that a Canadian farmer was found guilty of "knowingly" using Monsanto's seeds (via Monsanto's statistical analysis), in your mind, prove the converse for hypothetical scenarios in Iraq? The "meme" itself is barely relevant; I don't know how one can extrapolate much of anything from it, w/ respect to Iraq... except, perhaps, to illustrate my point that Monsanto is so ethically challenged, it would litigate candy from the hands of children if the profit margins were high enough.
• I didn't say they have sucessfully made the seeds non-reproducing (there are always rumours of attempts), I just know that a scientist was talking about GM maize, and that it just produces a crappy second crop. Because breeding/developing for longevity is not a priority - all companies want you to buy new seed from them.
• This is weird, we're talking about IPR in the Third World? Umm, there are none. Monsanto would sue the ass off first world producers, but Third World farmers, guess what, it ain't worth the bother. Fight an IPR lawsuit in an Iraqi court? you gotta be kidding me.
• And: No weapon manufacturers in that top 10? Come on... Agreed.
• Was watching a show on Bali the other night and the comment was made that GM rice yielded nearly twice the amount to the acre in half the time than the native rice. The punchline: native rice is twice as high in nutritional value and tastes better. Guess which rice has been superseded? ouch /bad pun I'm sure the world needs more weapon manufacturers as well as governments that are willing to sell to terrorist regimes and later can wage war on while looking for the evil WMDs /sarcasm
• storybored- I'm not sure I would consider Iraq a short term investment. Also, the MPAA and RIAA, for example, use litigation not as a means to generate revenue, per se, but rather to dissuade, intimidate, and 'make an example of' end users that "steal".
• Wedge, i think it comes down to exactly what you said: "Monsanto is so ethically challenged, it would litigate candy from the hands of children if the profit margins were high enough." Emphasis on "if the profit margins are high enough". In Iraq, where the majority are likely to be small farmers, the margins simply aren't there to make it worthwhile for Monsanto. If you're greedy, the $ is the first thing you notice. Trying to sue thousands of close-to-subsistance farmers? Not on the corporate radar screen. The other thing is that even if the American Occupational Govt were to insist on Monsanto seeds, (which would be pretty weird) what about the mitigating effect of NGOs? All you need is one charitable organization with a modest budget and the reseeding would be well underway. (In this way, seeds are a lot like MP3s) I dunno. If we're talking corporate wrongdoing, somehow the Halliburtons of the world seem worthy of more attention. Because there we are talking huge profit margins combined with less than full disclosure, a perfect breeding ground for corruption. This isn't even mentioning the homegrown Iraqi civil corruption too which adds to the general misery.
• according to the Wall Street Journal, medical journal articles are being used for drug agitprop. woot vioxx!
• That's bad news. Or maybe I shouldn't say news. This has sadly happened before. The other weird thing about this thread...it's almost a year later, and I have no recollection of posting any of the comments I made above.
• Sad, sad, sad. i tend to think of scientific/medical journals as the last bastion. MM mm mm. *shakes head*
• Hey Pete, if the med journals are in cahoots, we two could start a megacorporation and sell drugs for gabillions! All we have to do is pick a good disease and then come up with some phoney cure! Uh, so what's a good disease?
• The Rockin' Pneumonia and/or the Boogie-Woogie Flu.
• oo oo what about teenage crushes? Think of all the pain we could prevent for fawning love n00bs?! Or lite-rock. Let's develop a cure for that.
• Or the summertime blues...because there ain't no cure for them.
• The Worst Company in America.
• The truth about Monsanto & Fox News A clip from The Corporation, via MeFi.
• Color me unsurprised. Greedy fucks.
• *updates prized Monkey Coloring Book*
• Time to move on, people! Worst of 2005 BP - Delphi - Dupont - ExxonMobil - Ford - Halliburton - KPMG - Roche - Suez - W.R. Grace These people are steal and kill people, and make a profit at it. Apparently the selection process is fairly slow--nothing yet for '06. But stay tuned! We'll soon select 10 out of the many.
• I nominate the taqueria on Mission Street that gave me the burrito with bad chicken in it last summer.

• But for major U.S. corporations or other large entities, like KPMG, if you commit a crime, you get a prosecution deferred. ... Why? Because if you indict KPMG, you might drive it out of business, à la Arthur Andersen. But no matter, you can charge the company with a felony. And the Attorney General can get on national television and say that KPMG has admitted to criminal wrongdoing. The U.S. Attorney in New York wanted to pursue criminal charges. But he was overruled by his higher ups at the Justice Department. There is no doubt about it. KPMG engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said so. But because of possible “collateral consequences,” there is no conviction. Corporate crime is now crime without conviction.

  This is so very wrong, and it's completely contrary to ideas about free markets and competition leading to oversight and efficiency.