Q1
The main duty of marketing and advertising a product is to create awareness about the product being advertised. Additionally, an advertisement should provide the reader with adequate information on how to use the product as well as some of the expected positive as well as negative effects of using the drug. In this case, PharmaCare has engaged in unethical behavior whereby, they advertised the effectiveness of the drug in dealing with diabetes as well as reducing the rate of developing Alzheimer's disease while leaving behind the possible negative effects of using the drug. As a result of the misconduct, the company might lose its customer as they will lose trust in its operations. Also, the engages in Surrogate Advertising whereby it is advertising a product that has not been passed by law and also by selling the drugs to the clinic, and pharmacist in bulk irrespective of the fact that compounding pharmacies are not permitted to sell the drug in large quantities for general use. The company persuades the pharmacists to create a false list of the patient so that they can be allowed to purchase the drug in large quantity. In this case, the information is misleading to both the government and other health practitioners who might use the data to treat other patients who will, in turn, lead to adverse health effects and even death ( Brenkert, 2008) . Additionally, the use of false information is unethical as it provides exaggeration information.
Additionally, it is ethical for a company to protect its consumers by dishonest and misleading information and this explains why a product have to be assessed by the Bureau standards to ensure that the product is safe for human consumption ( Brenkert, 2008) . In this case, PharmaCare engages in an unethical behavior when it decides to sell the drug without being assessed by the Food and Drug Administration which evaluates the safety of consumable items that might affect human's health. The act of avoiding the assessment by the FDA is a clear indication that the company initially intended to harm the drug consumers. Additionally, the company has violated the code of conduct that protects intellectual property. The company has maximized on John's and other researchers to directly benefit from the selling of the AD23 without consulting with the research pharmacist as on whether to use their idea or not, in this case, the company has stolen an idea from the owners.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Q2
The Direct –to – Consumer drug advertisement is one of the recent advertisement strategies that have been a matter of discussion. The DTC approach is only applicable in two nations which include the Us and Newland. The approach has adverse effect on the patient and especially on matters regarding patient and health practitioner's interaction ( United States, 2013) . Firstly there are three forms of DTC drug advertisement which involve the self-seeking advertisement which persuades the patients to seek medical intervention based on the information provided on a specific health condition; in this form of advertisement product's names are not mentioned. Secondly is the reminder act which involves the name of the product and some of the details about the product such as its strengths and the price of the product. Lastly is the product claim advertisement which provides the indication of the product as well as its effectiveness and safety ( United States, 2013) .
The DTC drug advertisement has been in the past proved to have negative effects on the relationship between the health practitioners and the patients. The reduced contact and interaction between the patient and the physicians has adverse effects on the process of assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and the follow-up activities that are carried out by a physician on a patient, this in turn adversely affect the nature and quality of health services that patient receive after following the DTC information ( United States, 2013) .
Additionally, the FDA have been lenient on the type of information and product provided by the DCT which in turn creates high chances of patient's being provided with misleading information which will, in turn, influence their health status as well as the recovery process. Existing literature indicates that since the relaxation of the DTC in 1997, the DTC advertisements have become increasingly common and also the rules that regulate the nature of information and products advertised through DTC have become flexible providing an opportunity for traders to provide exaggerated or misleading information about a product ( United States, 2013) .
Additionally, the cost of receiving health care services after the DTC advertisement is costly when compared with the quality of services that are offered in health facilities ( United States, 2013) . In this case, the approach is uneconomical to many of the patients and also the patients should seek alternative services in the health facilities which are relatively pocket-friendly. Additionally, the advertisement drive patient to make choices rather than providing the patient with adequate information that will enable them to make an informed decision on their health condition. In this case, the advertisements are inadequate as they do not educate the patient on how to go about their health status but rather the advertisements provide suggestions on some of the means a patient can use to deal with a particular health condition ( United States, 2013) .
Q3
In 2013, the then US President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) into law which was given the duty of regulating the compounding pharmacies under the compounding quality act ( United States, 2013) . Additionally, the compounding pharmacies are also regulated by the current good manufacturing practice in which the pharmacies must follow the rules and regulations that pertain the manufacturing of human drugs ( United States, 2013) . Lastly, the FDA have the duty of inspecting the drugs by the risk-based schedule; additionally, the three departments work hand in hand with the states which are the primary regulators of pharmacies such as drug stores as well as regulating large drug chain dealers.
On the matter of the PharmaCare, the FDA had no legal responsibility for inspecting the drugs or verifying the information that was distributed to the customers ( United States, 2013) . Additionally, as a registered firm, PharmaCare was acting by the Drug Quality and Security Act which allows the licensed health practitioners to combine drugs and come up with a compound drug. Additionally, the company did not violate any of its procedures of manufacturing the drug and therefore, the company could not be held responsible for any illegal actions as it followed the laws to the later. Besides the company abiding by the law in its production and duty of providing the compounding drug, the company would face a legal process due to other factors such as selling the drug to compounding pharmacies for general purpose which is against the provisions of the compounding pharmacies.
Q4
Firstly the Pharmacare company employs the intellectual property law to establish another subsidiary company CompCare to take advantage of the new inventory. In this case, the company under the law is protected as it has developed a new and unique medication that can be used to reduce the process of memory loss. In this case, the Compcare Company is protected against other investors who might develop and sell the drug. This explains why the pharmacy can sell the drug to other clinics, health practitioners as well as selling the drug in different pharmacies. Additionally, the company utilizes its intellectual property rights when it sells Compcare to WellCo allowing the Wellco company to use its innovation which directly benefits Pharmacare ( Norman, 2014) . Additionally, the company pays some bonus to John as compensation for allowing the company to use his ideas.
The company has also employed the trademark intellectual property right whereby a company name, symbol and product slogan are protected and can only be used by another company upon approval. In this case, the Compcare company uses the symbols, data, network and marketing strategies employed by its mother company, therefore, enabling the company to attract new and maintain already existing customers easily ( Norman, 2014) . Trademark also applies to the case where the company uses the drug as it was named by John while compensating John some amount of money for allowing them to use their product name and symbol.
Apparently, John had no legal claim on the product simply because he had not registered his idea with the US intellectual property law which protects the investor's ideas from being utilized by the public and only makes the innovation available after twenty years. Additionally, John had not developed the product trademark and therefore cannot claim that the product is his idea.
Firstly the company should compensate John who was the company's researcher as a result of using his ideas, in this case, John is entitled to infringement compensation. The company violated the intellectual property right which protected John's idea from being implemented by other investors, and since the company already used the idea, then John as the founder of the idea is entitled to infringement compensation ( Norman, 2014) . Secondly, the company can also compensate John by buying the invention, in this case, the company and Jon should come to an agreement on the value of the idea so as to help John acquire reasonable compensation for his innovation. Lastly, the company can also opt to compensate John using the compulsory licensing approach, which allows the company to pay John the patent owner some loyalty fee as compensation for using his ideas ( Bainbridge, 2012) . Additionally, the company will pay John by using his invention. The compulsory licensing approach requires the company together with the patent owner to determine the value of the invention regarding the benefits that the company will experience while using the new idea.
Q5
In 2015, a Texas software company Versata sued Ford Motor Company for stealing their intellectual property after the software company helped the automotive company to reduce its cost of operation ( Oswald & Pagnattaro, 2015) . Versata further claims that the internal software created by the Ford Motor company was significantly based on data and software from Versata Company, which in turn illustrates of infringement of the Versata patent. The disputes between the two companies had the significant impact on the total sales made by the Ford Motor company in the since the establishment of the claims. The Ford Company has recorded a massive reduction in sales which have significantly been attributed to the theft of intelligence property; this is an illustration of the loss of client's trust of the company due to the theft allegations ( Oswald & Pagnattaro, 2015) . Additionally, the company has also been faced with a bad public image arising from intellectual property theft. Lastly, the company has also suffered bad brand reputation which in turn influences customer's interest in goods and services from the company.
Q6
According to the scene, John's wife died from a heart attack which was facilitated by the consumption of AD23 medication provided by Pharmacare. The death of John's wife is after the company was associated with selling the AD23 drugs which lead to the death of a good number of patient's using de drug. Instead of the company taking appropriate actions to reduce the effects of the drug, the company continues to advertise the product as well as well delivering large quantities of the drug as well as paying the bonus to the concerned individual who might interfere with its operation if not well compensated. In this case, the company can be viewed as opposing a life threatening situation and therefore face a legal process to stop the company from producing the drug which might lead to more deaths. Additionally, the company is also faced with intellectual property theft as it is using the idea of its former employee without legal compensation procedures. Also, the company might face legal process as a result of delivering large quantities of the drug which is against the compounding pharmacy provision which limits the quality of drug sold for general purposes. Lastly, the company might also face legal prosecution as a result of providing inadequate information regarding the drug which in turn influences how the consumers make a decision, in this case, the drug advertisement lack basic information on side effects of the drug when used to reduce the rate of memory loss.
Q7
One and the major approach that John can use to prove that he was the founder of the AD23 drugs is by using by providing the formula used to produce the drug. John is a researcher and a pharmacist and therefore since he was the core founders of AD23 drugs, he can demonstrate to the judiciary on the procedures and quantities of drugs mixed to produce the drug. In this case, John will be able to win the case, where the PharmaCare Company claims to be the founders as they lack basic formula used in manufacturing the drug ( Bainbridge, 2012) . John's trade secret should be protected by using non-disclosure agreement whereby John and other stakeholders enter into an agreement to keep the formula a secret so as to prevent other people from utilizing their ideas. In this case, if the company allows getting into this form of an agreement, the company will not have any legal right to share the secret. Additionally, John idea can also be protected under patent protection whereby, other individuals and companies will not be allowed to use the new idea without seeking permission from John who is the owner of the patent ( Bainbridge, 2012) . In this case, the company will be prohibited from using John's idea unless John agrees to their terms of allowing them to do so.
References
Bainbridge, D. I. (2012). Intellectual property . Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Brenkert, G. G. (2008). Marketing ethics . Malden, MA [u.a.: Blackwell.
Norman, H. E. (2014). Intellectual property law . Oxford : Oxford University Press,
Oswald, L. J., & Pagnattaro, M. A. (2015). Managing the legal nexus between intellectual property and employees: Domestic and global contexts . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
United States. (2013). Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: What are the consequences? : hearing before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, first session, Washington, DC, July 22, 2003 . Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
