Official Adderall XR Timeline 8/2004-12/2009

[CptNemo]

08.12.2004 US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approves ADDERALL XR® to treat adults:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

02.22.2005 ADDERALL XR™recall has highlighted a critical problem for Health Canada:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Health Canada appears to have ignored a number of issues or neglected to take them into consideration..

...The FDA in the United States has had access to the same data but has had a very different interpretation and response to Health Canada. In the confusion over the interpretation of the data and Health Canada's response to it, Canadian parents are left with a suspicion of all medications.

Late January through June,Impax and Barr have been filing letters for generic rights.

08.24.2005 Shire Pharmaceuticals announces reinstatement of ADDERALL XR® in Canada:

http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20



10.13.2005 Shire submits Citizen Petition with the Food and Drug Administration:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Shire filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA to require more rigorous bioequivalence testing or additional clinical testing for generic or follow-on drug products that reference ADDERALL XR before they can be approved. Compliance with these requested criteria will ensure that generic formulations of ADDERALL XR will be clinically effective and safe.




10.20.2005 Shire Files Legal Suit against Barr Laboratories and Impax Laboratories for Infringement of XR- U.S. Patent No. 6,913,768:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20


01.19.2006 Shire and Impax settle all pending litigation concerning XR:


Nothing changed in the Impax formula,but now Shire isn't worried about the health concerns noted in their petition. It was dropped.

Impax will be permitted to market generic versions of ADDERALL XR in the United States no later than January 1, 2010 and will pay Shire a royalty from those sales. In certain situations, such as the launch of another generic version of ADDERALL XR, Impax may be permitted to enter the market as Shire’s authorized generic. No payments to Impax are involved in the settlement agreement.

04.10.2006 ADDERALL XR^® The Court Sets October 30, 2006 Bench Trial:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

..pending New York litigation between Shire and Barr Laboratories, Inc. involving alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,322,819 and 6,605,300, the Court in a pretrial conference scheduled the bench trial to commence on October 30, 2006.

Note what happens before 10.30.06,below.



04.20.2006 Shire Receives Interim Response From FDA on ADDERALL XR^® Citizen Petition:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Bad news for investors.

FDA has not yet resolved the issues raised in Shire’s pending ADDERALL XR Citizen Petition.
The FDA states that due to the complex issues raised requiring extensive review and analysis by the FDA’s officials, a decision cannot be reached at this time. The FDA’s interim response is in accordance with FDA regulations concerning Citizen Petitions.


08.14.2006 Shire and Barr Settle All Pending Litigation Concerning XR: http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Nothing changed in the Barr formula,but now Shire isn't worried about the health concerns noted in their petition. It was dropped.

Barr will not be permitted to market a generic version of ADDERALL XR in the United States until April 1, 2009, except for certain limited circumstances, such as the launch of another party’s generic version of ADDERALL XR. As announced earlier this year, Shire’s settlement with Impax Laboratories allows Impax to market a generic version of ADDERALL XR 181 days following Barr’s launch. No payments to Barr are involved in the settlement agreement.

They had to settle. The Bench trial was scheduled for Oct 30th...76 days away.

Shire kept their patents.
Patent #6,913,768 - "Sustained release delivery of amphetamine salts"-2005
http://www.wikipatents.com/6913768.html
(Great Charts,BTW)

Patent # 6,605,300
"Oral Pulsed Dose Drug Delivery System" -2003
http://www.wikipatents.com/6605300.html

Patent #6322819
"Oral Pulsed Dose Drug Delivery System" -2001
http://www.wikipatents.com/6322819.html

11.29.2006 Sandoz files papers to mfg generic XR:

(see link to pdf file below)


01.25.07 Shire files against Sandoz for Patent Infringement:

http://patentdocs.typepad.com/patent...e_v_sandoz.pdf

This is a pdf file of court documents.For some reason,this wasn't released to the shareholders through normal channels.

Patents that Shire is defending: (same as above)
Patent # 6,322,819
"Oral Pulsed Dose Drug Delivery System" 2001
Patent # 6,605,300
"Oral Pulsed Dose Drug Delivery System" 2003


03.21.2007 Shire Files Suit against Colony Pharmaceuticals for XR patent infringement:
http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

09.03.2007 Stock Price: Hi $81.0000 Vol.1,862,155

06.20.2008 Shire feels heat of impending patent expiration:
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/...r-Shire-23325/

If the FDA opens the gates to XR generics and Vyvanse can't defend the franchise, then Shire wouldn't merit its 25% premium to the 12 times multiple carried by most pharmaceutical stocks. An industry multiple would pull Shire shares down to a level equivalent to about 40 on the depositary shares.

Shire executives and admirers think investors are unduly worried about the XR patent expiration. Some 60% of Shire revenues come from other products, notes Mike Cola, president of its specialty pharma business. He's confident that Vyvanse will become the best-seller for ADHD. And Adderall XR could end up thriving beyond next year, if the FDA concurs with Shire's petition and raises testing hurdles for XR generics.

10.27.2008 Stock Price: Hi $40.5300 Vol.5,527,685
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/dynamic_c...selected=SHPGY

~04.01.2009 Barr Markets Adderall:
From Shire:
“We are bottling them and labeling them and shipping them to Teva and Impax respectively, and then they distribute them through their channels through wholesalers and pharmacies,” Cabrey said. “The difference is that it isn’t a true generic because none of the other pharmaceutical companies have gone through the exercise of clinical trials to demonstrate that they can produce the same exact molecule with the same exact efficacy and safety profile as the original.”






10.13.09 Shire and Sandoz Settle All Pending Litigation Concerning ADDERALL XR®:

Nothing changed in Sandoz formula,but now Shire isn't worried about the health concerns noted in their petition. It was dropped.

http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/phar.../detail/634102

The settlement also gives Sandoz license to market a generic version of Adderall XR if and when FDA approves it. That said the chance that Sandoz would pursue the application with two existing patents in play is doubtful.
“Sandoz is welcome to initiate and authorized generic once they get approval from the FDA,” Shire’s Director of Communications Matt Cabrey said.



As of right now, there are only two authorized generics approved and available to patients and both are manufactured by Shire—one for Teva and one for IMPAX Labs.


“We are bottling them and labeling them and shipping them to Teva and Impax respectively, and then they distribute them through their channels through wholesalers and pharmacies,” Cabrey said. “The difference is that it isn’t a true generic because none of the other pharmaceutical companies have gone through the exercise of clinical trials to demonstrate that they can produce the same exact molecule with the same exact efficacy and safety profile as the original.”

Shortly after Adderall XR was approved, five companies challenged Shire’s patent. From an investment perspective Shire was stuck in the notion that if it lost patent that the company would be in dire straits. In 2006, the executive team at Shire agreed to partner with Teva and IMPAX to mitigate concern.
“It helped to reassure investors that Shire had a plan in place to position our portfolio of drugs, and we knew we could put into place efforts around commercializing the new ADHD treatment Vivance,” Cabrey said.“That allowed us to concentrate on maximizing our investment in Vivance, which we purchased in 2007.”






http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Shire, on Tuesday, publically stated that it had come to an agreement with Sandoz to forgo any litigation involving Adderall XR. In exchange, Sandoz admitted it had infringed on two Shire patents.

Shire kept its patents.


12.02.09 Shire and Teva Settle Litigation Concerning Supply of ADDERALL XR Authorized Generic:

Shire claimed DEA restricted amphetamines,and couldn't supply Teva.

http://www.shire.com/shire/NewsAndMe...n=3&m1=8&m2=20

Shire’s ability to supply the product had been limited by restrictions that the US Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) places on amphetamine, which is the product’s active ingredient. Teva filed suit claiming that Shire was in breach of its supply contract. After the lawsuit was filed, DEA granted Shire additional quota for 2009, allowing Shire to supply Teva with additional product.

Shire kept its patents.

12.10.09 Sandoz still not FDA approved:

The settlement also provides Sandoz with a license to market it own generic versions of ADDERALL XR® in the United States beginning upon approval of its own generic products by the FDA

Before 01.01.10 Impax allowed to market XR:

Impax will be permitted to market generic versions of ADDERALL XR in the United States no later than January 1, 2010

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Earlier related thread:http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75190


Shire XR 2007 Ingredients:http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/D.../ucm085819.pdf

[CptNemo]

Would like to add/update timeline:
10.06.2009 Impax Labs commences shipment of generic Adderall XR capsules:
http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/det...994&sectionid=

===================================
It seems very obvious to me,and a very indisputable conclusion.

There is an absolute difference between Brand XR,and every other generic XR.

The delivery system is the key difference.

Shire maintained its patents on all the delivery systems,and it can be seen that they put those patents above all else,when legal action was taking place,in regards to competing generics.

They just threw the safety and mental health of all the patients,out the window.It is clear that money alone is their primary concern.

It doesn't surprise me ,really.
What drives people like us, is not what drives the financial world,and our plight is of no consequence.

The timeline shows that in all its sad glory.

Those patents are their most prized possession.
They are the key to their Brand's success,and the FDA just wandered around with their fingers up their buttes,and let money decide the fate of health,instead of morals and principals.

Mr. President,good luck with your goals for the US health system.

Except for the few lines in this color and font,all that info is taken directly from the listed sources next to the text.

My goal was to present a chronological list of facts,without clouding them with personal perception,or influence.Well,almost.
As you can see,most of the listed sources are Shire itself,pulled from five years of their 'press releases'.

What does everyone think?
Am I misreading the facts?
(I've been known to do that.)

PS: I know its long.I tried to make it so a person could just read the bolded lines,and get the gist of it.

Not sure if that worked.

[KMiller]

Originally Posted by CptNemo

They just threw the safety and mental health of all the patients,out the window.It is clear that money alone is their primary concern.

Shire is a publicly traded company. It exists for no other reason than to return a profit to its shareholders.

Why do you expect otherwise?

Shire's main problem is that their heavy specialization sets them up to take a hit every time they lose a patent. Shire primarily involves itself in ADHD medications and genetic drugs. They don't have a rapid enough or large enough pipeline to replace their exclusive brands quicker than they lose them. Adderall XR has been the best in the market for a long time, and amusingly, Shire is faced with the task of beating its own drug in the market.

Regardless, though, the fact of the matter is that Shire is a pharmaceutical company, not a doctor or a clinic. The only obligation it has to patients is to provide quality medications that help people - and the only reason it has that obligation is because that is the vehicle by which the company serves its only real purpose: to return a profit to the shareholders.

[CptNemo]

Originally Posted by KMiller

Shire is a publicly traded company. It exists for no other reason than to return a profit to its shareholders.

Why do you expect otherwise?

I didn't.
I have gotten the impression though,that many members seem to ignore that fact.
Some people have a misplaced trust in their government,which until recently,I did too.

Why do you think so many people can't accept that all generics are the same as the originals?

Thats what we are told,by the govt(FDA).

I also don't expect people to stop stealing credit card information. As you say,they too exist to turn a profit.

I am of the opinion that is bad. Not just long term to the financial powers that run our government.

Please don't explain to me how theft promotes capitalism by creating a new market for software security companies!

I ,whether naively or not,believe that this country has a commitment to its citizens.

Liberty is out the window,but I expect our leaders to still maintain the illusion of life,and the pursuit of happiness just a little bit better.
I thought others might feel the same way.
The President even told me as much.

I understand the nature of the beast,but I feel the govt should try to stop serial killers,for reasons other than capitalistic concerns.
This is closer to my concern:

... FDA just wandered around with their fingers up their buttes,and let money decide the fate of health,instead of morals and principals.

Originally Posted by KMiller

Shire's main problem is that their heavy specialization sets them up to take a hit every time they lose a patent. Shire primarily involves itself in ADHD medications and genetic drugs.

I don't see it that way.Their main problem is trying to make a profit(good),while playing by the 'rules';specifically the Waxman-Hatch Act,of 1984.(bad)

I don't have a solution.Too much red tape,and I have no idea how to fix the situation.

My biggest concern,is public awareness of this situation.

As I smoke my cigarette,I am not as concerned about the whole 'killing me' thing,but I would be pretty pi$$ed if I wasn't made aware of a health concern regarding it.

Obviously I don't care enough about myself,but I do for others.

The public never would never have been made aware of this,if the govt didn't step in.

I'd like them to do it again,please.

Life is not 'fair'. I get that.

Even with this knowledge,I can't afford the best.

The generics are much better than going without.
I concede. I'm glad I have that option,that many don't.

If I had a kid with adhd though,and knew what I do now,I would sure as he^^ sell my Plasma to get him another 6 months of the best meds,if he wasn't responding well to a generic I knew was different.

Originally Posted by KMiller

and amusingly, Shire is faced with the task of beating its own drug in the market.

Sure,they were faced with that problem,and yes I suppose it is ironic that conforming to the laws to make a profit,forced them there.

Luckily for them,they found the best solution to their problem.

01.01.2010: Original Shire formulas for IR and XR to disappear forever:
http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com...002541&ad=true

Both Adderall and Adderall XR have generic preparations available for dispensing. There is much discussion by prescribed users of Adderall and Adderall XR, on whether any of the Generics are equivalent in symptom reduction, as compared to original Shire Adderall. The issue is further compounded with TEVA now owning the Branded Name "Adderall" as well as the Generic rights after TEVA acquired Barr. TEVA will be using the Barr generic formula for all its Generic and Branded Adderall. Shire will stop Manufacturing of Adderall in both IR and XR forms. By early 2010, there is expected to be no availability of the original Shire formula on the market.

---I'd like to add this to the timeline,please---


They leveraged themselves legally,formed an agreement with competitors,and are getting large royalties to take what is arguably the best medicine in the history of ADHD,and bury it forever.

As you say,they need to turn a profit.I agree.
Seems the govt should give them some more options,that's all.

[KMiller]

Did you seriously compare the profitability of a publicly traded company to credit card theft and serial murder just then? I don't even see how that makes sense.

I don't see how the government factors into this at all, except as red tape which keeps companies from being as profitable as they could be (for better or for worse, this is necessary to ensure companies behave ethically). I don't see how the Hatch-Waxman Act is relevant here except as a process that the generic manufacturers have to go through.

Pharmaceutical companies behave pseudo-altruistically all the time, by providing drugs at reduced costs to people with limited incomes (with the return of future sales and improved public image). They do help consumers, and they do provide a service in developing the future of medical care. But those aren't their purpose: their purpose is to make the investors happy.

[CptNemo]

Originally Posted by KMiller

Did you seriously compare the profitability of a publicly traded company to credit card theft and serial murder just then? I don't even see how that makes sense.

Yes.
I feel those two analogies you can't make sense of are examples of why the govt needs to take responsibility for the general public. I.E. Laws.
Those two examples are entities,yet they share actions that may benefit themselves,but not the public as a whole.
I'm not sure if you disagree with my view,or my analogies.
I notice you didn't use my tobacco companies analogy.
If you prefer an apples to apples comparison,just use the one with tobacco companies.
Do you feel 'big tobacco' should be left unregulated?
There is some pretty damning science based evidence that their product might not be good for people.
The FDA stepped in.
If you think that's wrong,you should let them know.

I don't see how the government factors into this at all, except as red tape which keeps companies from being as profitable as they could be (for better or for worse, this is necessary to ensure companies behave ethically).

You answered your own question.

But those aren't their purpose: their purpose is to make the investors happy.

Yes,you're right. Serial killers have a purpose too.

I'm just expressing my opinion,which is that I just don't think either of those purposes should be held in the same regard by the govt.

[KMiller]

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Yes.
I feel those two analogies you can't make sense of are examples of why the govt needs to take responsibility for the general public. I.E. Laws.

It benefits the general public for corporations to be profitable.

Those two examples are entities,yet they share actions that may benefit themselves,but not the public as a whole.

If corporations are not free to make money, then what is their purpose? Or are you a socialist?

I'm not sure if you disagree with my view,or my analogies.
I notice you didn't use my tobacco companies analogy.
If you prefer an apples to apples comparison,just use the one with tobacco companies.

I forgot about the tobacco one.

Do you feel 'big tobacco' should be left unregulated?

I think that big tobacco should be allowed to do what it needs to do within the law to make a profit. The government is regulating the product, not the company.

But in fact this is not an apples to apples comparison. A better comparison would be some other form of patented product.

The pharmaceutical industry is the only industry where market exclusivity is lost. Coca Cola will always be allowed to keep their exact recipe a secret. The seven herbs and spices will forever be a trade secret. Pharmaceutical companies have a very narrow window to make enough returns to make the drug profitable after R&D costs. These companies spend millions of dollars just developing the drug, then marketing and manufacturing, there is a lot of overhead that goes into pharmaceuticals. Can you blame a company for trying to turn a profit on its intellectual property?

Should musicians lose the rights to their music 10 years after they perform it?

If companies are not free to make a profit on their products, then there is no incentive to develop new products. If a drug company is not allowed to profit from its drug, then why would they continue to spend millions, or in the case of companies like Pfizer, billions of dollars researching? Surely you don't believe companies should be compelled to behave altruistically?

You answered your own question.

Which part? The red tape or the ethics?

I'm just expressing my opinion,which is that I just don't think either of those purposes should be held in the same regard by the govt.

If the government does not hold "companies being profitable" in high regard, we might as well quit capitalism.

[CptNemo]

Those are very interesting points.
Frankly,I really don't know to respond.

Originally Posted by KMiller

If corporations are not free to make money, then what is their purpose? Or are you a socialist?

Ha! ROTFLMAO If you only knew the irony of that statement when you wrote it.
I almost feel guilty,but:
I can recommend a book for you.

"The Jungle",by Upton Sinclair. 1905

He's the socialist that started this whole mess.

He,and people like him,have tainted my views.

[KMiller]

I'm familiar with The Jungle. It was extremely relevant in the early 1900s.

I would like to recommend a book of my own. You may have heard of it, it's called The Wealth of Nations.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

To keep us vaguely on topic, the point here is that pharmaceutical companies promote the common good as a side effect and not a primary purpose of their doing business. It is their goal to make money, which they do by developing drugs which aid the common good. In this way they are benefiting society, but it is not their goal: they are being led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of their intention.

Where would we be without them? But they are in the end corporations whose purpose is to return a profit to their shareholders. You can criticize them for looking out for their own self interest, but I feel it's untoward to place a higher moral standard on pharmaceutical companies than on other companies solely because of the market they are in. Nobody demands General Motors provide free cars, or KFC to provide free meals, but yet people deride pharmaceutical companies for charging so much for their drugs or doing things to remain profitable in what is ultimately a hostile marketplace.

Shire has every right to look out for its patents, and in fact it benefits their shareholders to do so. It would be a delinquent company if it did not - there would be no investor confidence. Publicly traded corporations exist due to their shareholders: sale of stock is how they raise the capital necessary to operate. If Shire did not protect its patents, nobody would want to invest in Shire, Shire's value would plummet, and Shire would no longer be able to operate.

Edit: And with Shire unable to operate, the research into future ADHD drugs (and genetic drugs - Shire has specialized but diverse interests) is lost, and current medications like Vyvanse can't be distributed. In this way, in fact, it is beneficial to everyone for Shire to protect its patents and remain profitable.

[CptNemo]

Originally Posted by CptNemo

I don't see it that way.Their main problem is trying to make a profit(good),while playing by the 'rules';specifically the Waxman-Hatch Act,of 1984.(bad)

Originally Posted by CptNemo

My biggest concern,is public awareness of this situation.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

As I smoke my cigarette,I am not as concerned about the whole 'killing me' thing,but I would be pretty pi$$ed if I wasn't made aware of a health concern regarding it.

Obviously I don't care enough about myself,but I do for others.

The public never would never have been made aware of this,if the govt didn't step in.

I'd like them to do it again,please.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Sure,they were faced with that problem,and yes I suppose it is ironic that conforming to the laws to make a profit,forced them there.

Are you arguing against what you *wish* I was saying,or are you just not understanding these statements?

I even went as far as to add "(good)" and "(bad)" to one of those statements,to be sure you understood.

Its ironic(again) that you suggest that you want to stay "vaguely on topic",when you seem to be unclear of what the topic is.

Yes,that book by the socialist Upton Sinclair *was* important to people in the early 1900's.

It ultimately led to the FDA.

The FDA was established to keep the public safe from negative consequences resulting from capitalism.

Do you think Enron should have just had the 'invisible hand' lead them,instead of the govt?

Same with tobacco companies?

To use your style of argument:

Do you hate all babies,or just American babies?

[KMiller]

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Are you arguing against what you *wish* I was saying,or are you just not understanding these statements?

Going with "not understanding." If I'm arguing a straw man, it's not intentional.

Also, I've missed key parts of points. I apologize, I've been working 40 hours as well as taking two courses this week, my brain is cooked.

What led me to the impression that you were arguing that it was bad that these companies are doing these things were lines like

Originally Posted by CptNemo

They just threw the safety and mental health of all the patients,out the window.It is clear that money alone is their primary concern.

and

Originally Posted by CptNemo

I also don't expect people to stop stealing credit card information. As you say,they too exist to turn a profit.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

I even went as far as to add "(good)" and "(bad)" to one of those statements,to be sure you understood.

I misunderstood this line because you directed towards a previous post of mine where I explained my take on why Shire has historically (as you point out in your original post) had troubles on the marketplace.

And actually, I made it clear that I didn't understand why you brought it up or what you were on about.

Originally Posted by KMiller

I don't see how the Hatch-Waxman Act is relevant here except as a process that the generic manufacturers have to go through.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Its ironic(again) that you suggest that you want to stay "vaguely on topic",when you seem to be unclear of what the topic is.

Again, apologies.

The FDA was established to keep the public safe from negative consequences resulting from capitalism.

Unfortunately it often involves itself in much more than that, and is used as an instrument by which the government can influence the marketplace, not unlike the DEA.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Do you think Enron should have just had the 'invisible hand' lead them,instead of the govt?

I'm not sure you understand the invisible hand quote. The "invisible hand" was the mechanism by which Enron provided power to millions of people.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

Same with tobacco companies?

I believe recent regulations on tobacco companies are ridiculous, for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by CptNemo

To use your style of argument:

Do you hate all babies,or just American babies?

I reread the conversation and fail to see where I've used a complex question once, or in fact any logical fallacy, and I am actually quite offended that you would say that employing logical fallacy is my "style of argument."

Edit: like, legitimately angry. I know I don't use fallacy in argument, do I come across like I do somehow? I could see how you could think I've been attacking a straw man, but I legitimately have not apprehended the point you're trying to make.

[CptNemo]

Originally Posted by KMiller

And actually, I made it clear that I didn't understand why you brought it up or what you were on about.

You did,and I thought I explained where I felt the problems lay,with the govt/FDA.

You did me a service,by getting me away from my ethical stance,regarding corporations.

I can't comprehend how the decision makers of big business can live with their conscience sometimes.

I stated my feelings on that,and it clouded my more important point: I think the govt needs to change/create laws that allow the corps to thrive in a more ethical manner.

I realize how my naivety has nothing to do with their true goals,as you have pointed out.

I would never succeed in this environment,obviously.

I don't think you would,either.
I mean that as a compliment.

I'm sure you could use your brainpower to create a lot more wealth for yourself than your current direction is leading you.

I can't help but think/hope that we are similar in our motivating factors.

Originally Posted by KMiller

Unfortunately it often involves itself in much more than that, and is used as an instrument by which the government can influence the marketplace, not unlike the DEA.

Agreed,and I'm sure I have no idea to its extent.

Originally Posted by KMiller

I'm not sure you understand the invisible hand quote. The "invisible hand" was the mechanism by which Enron provided power to millions of people.

Maybe not. My thought is that Enron was acting exactly as your quotes suggested,regarding the idea proposed by 'the Wealth of Nations'.

To that,I suggest their decisions not only negatively impacted the greater whole of capitalism,but perhaps themselves. I will leave morality out of it do to relevance here,to Enron's concerns.

I feel that exposing their methods,and the need to create new laws based from this experience,is an important necessity of our govt.

Furthermore,I would suggest that the govt needs to interject not only for economic concerns,but moral ones as well. I feel this is their duty.

Perhaps the degree of importance of morals;or perhaps the fact that the govts motives are really never as altruistic as they appear,or abused,are your complaints about their intervention.

Maybe the extent,or mishandling of their influence is bad.

Originally Posted by KMiller

I believe recent regulations on tobacco companies are ridiculous, for what it's worth.

I haven't kept up with recent events.

I am suggesting that the discovery of 'Big Tobacco' willfully hiding proof of the highly addictive nature of nicotine is morally wrong.

Health concerns being acknowledged by the Attorney General is necessary for public safety,and trumps capitalistic concerns.

Advertising aimed at children,for a product known to be highly addictive and carcinogenic,should be banned for similar reasons.

I am not debating whether govt influence is not overzealous or misdirected,nor suggesting that cigarettes be made illegal.

Originally Posted by KMiller

I reread the conversation and fail to see where I've used a complex question once, or in fact any logical fallacy, and I am actually quite offended that you would say that employing logical fallacy is my "style of argument."

My straw man reference was to this:

Originally Posted by CptNemo

If corporations are not free to make money, then what is their purpose? Or are you a socialist?

I never suggested such a silly notion that corporations shouldn't make money,so I felt the 'socialist' comment was not relevant.

Actually,I thought it was an amusing conclusion,and thought that was your intent.

That's why I put the symbol in that baby statement.

Please take no offense.

I have no doubt that you like babies and have high moral integrity.

I think this thread has now been officially sidetracked.