The BAT argument here in New Zealand is that government should not impose plain packaging on cigarettes as this is unfair to BAT as the brand owner. BAT executives may want the debate to be on IP rights, but the societal issue is actually about business morality.
From the Agree-Disagree website:
"Intellectual property is one of the most valuable assets of any business. Our brands are our intellectual property, which we have created and in which we have invested. Plain packaging would deprive us of the right to use our brands".
Of course, this avoids/denies the fundamental immorality of the product. The minority of BAT people should find a right way to conduct business, with a product that creates value for all people, communities, and society. Cigarettes impose an unacceptable cost on customers and society. Putting it bluntly, society doesn't need businesses like this. The argument over IP is irrelevant. Cigarette production and sales result in net negative value, and the cost for unfortunate addicts is ultimate and final. Whilst shareholders make money, and employees to a lesser extent, there is far more economic, social, and societal harm resulting from this business - worldwide.
I hope to see this product outlawed in the foreseeable future. Then the intelligence and hard work of the people employed can be turned to something useful.
Can there be many such negative brands? (weapons, drugs, slavery in the same category)?
So, protection of a legitimate brand or protection of the right to take from public resources for private profit?
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment