Refreshing bit of corporate news

Post by **bitWISE** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 am

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/05/coke. ... index.html

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:12 am

"refreshing bit". good one.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:55 am

It is kinda refreshing - a large company like Pepsi taking the ethical high road, when they probably could have gotten their biggest rival's trade secrets.
Seems like a pretty rare quality these days.

Post by **Foo** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:03 pm

Pepsi didn't want the information because they couldn't put it to any use anyway.

Post by **Plan B** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:08 pm

Foo wrote:Pepsi didn't want the information because they couldn't put it to any use anyway.

Exactly.
They would be admitting that Coca Cola is the superior brand if they did.

Post by **Foo** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:13 pm

Regardless, Coca-Cola has held the exclusive right to import coca leaves into the US. They get the 'non-cocaine' portion of what's left after processing, and the remainder cocaine goes to legitimate use in the pharmaceuitical industry.

Pepsi can't get in on that process, and it's no real secret that that's the core component that keeps coca-cola distinct from the rest.

Post by **Plan B** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:22 pm

I wasn't aware of that.

Seems strange that in a free market one manifacturer gets exclusive rights to process certain ingredients.

Post by **Foo** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:39 pm

Gets more interesting if you read into the chemistry crap. Seems that the process for removing cocaine from the mix isn't entirely effective, and cocaine molecules remain in the mix and do still find their way into coca-cola.

Post by **Foo** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:41 pm

On teh wixipedias:

According to popular belief, the coca leaf extract cocaine was once added to Coca-Cola, per se. Because cocaine is naturally present in untreated coca leaves, small amounts of cocaine were also present in the beverage. Today's Coca-Cola uses "spent" coca leaves, those that have been through a cocaine extraction process, to flavor the beverage. Since this process cannot extract the cocaine alkaloids at a molecular level, the drink still contains trace amounts of the stimulant[24]. The United States DEA oversees the importation of coca for Coca-Cola, and later sale of the extracted cocaine to the drug industry where it is used in the creation of many of the common drugs whose names end in "-caine" (such as Procaine and Lidocaine).[25]

Sources on the bottom of the article for it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

Post by **Plan B** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:49 pm

Foo wrote:Gets more interesting if you read into the chemistry crap. Seems that the process for removing cocaine from the mix isn't entirely effective, and cocaine molecules remain in the mix and do still find their way into coca-cola.

Sounds a bit urban legendy to me.

I like the taste, but I maybe drink it twice a month, and not out of some sort of craving.

The insane amounts of sugar are probably more addictive than the alleged cocaine residue.

Post by **mrd** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:31 pm

I doubt the small amount would be enough to make it addicting... might just give that extra punch that Pepsi doesn't have, though.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:02 pm

Coca cola has the exclusive right to import coca into the US?

How does that work?

Post by **iambowelfish** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:29 pm

Isn't Pepsi supposed to perform better in blind tatse tests anyway? Like The Pepsi Challenge?

So if their recipe is already better, they probably couldn't improve it by making it more Coke-Like, and it's their marketing they shoudl concentrate on..

I *think* I prefer the taste of Coke, but I drink Pepsi because their ethical record is a little less apalling.

Post by **Plan B** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:30 pm

iambowelfish wrote:...ethical record...

Elaborate

Post by **bitWISE** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:39 pm

iambowelfish wrote:Isn't Pepsi supposed to perform better in blind tatse tests anyway? Like The Pepsi Challenge?

So if their recipe is already better, they probably couldn't improve it by making it more Coke-Like, and it's their marketing they shoudl concentrate on..

I *think* I prefer the taste of Coke, but I drink Pepsi because their ethical record is a little less apalling.

They wouldn't have to make Pepsi taste like Coke. If they really wanted to use the recipe they could simply create a new branded drink, Coca-Stola, using the Coke recipe.

Post by **iambowelfish** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:09 pm

Well... I read some newspaper articles ages ago, one about how they were taking water from farmers in India or something, and one about Coca-Cola's use of paramilitaries to suppress unions in Columbia.

Together it was enough to convince me. I'm on a very corporatised university campus York U, Toronto out in the suburbs here so Pepsi and Coke branded drinks are the only options.

In the UK, the National Union of Students'' Coke exclusivity has been enough of an issue to contribute to some student unions disaffiliating.

When I lived in Leeds I drank other weird brands, I lived in a Muslim area and the local supermarket sold Qibla Cola which has Coca-Cola ripoff packaging but donates 10% of sales to charitable causes and carries the slogan "Liberate Your Taste"!

Post by **Foo** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:50 pm

Quibla's pretty good. Tho buying from shops that stocked it, I quickly moved onto Rubicon as a wholly different but awesome beverage

Post by **Fender** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:09 pm

bitWISE wrote:Coca-Stola

l-oh-fucking-l

Post by **kapitalkev** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:33 pm

riddla wrote:Found it:

http://web.archive.org/web/200406121415 ... cocakarma/

Damn!!!!

I'm only halfway through the synopsis and I'm already pissed off.

Greedy fucks! :icon33:

Post by **kapitalkev** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:37 pm

In 1999, Kolody successfully retained renowned Arkansas federal attorney Dan Ivy to fight his case. As soon as he came onto the scene, Ivy discovered a series of judicial improprieties emanating from the bench. In response, he filed several motions of 'judicial perjury' - a motion that accuses the judge of committing fraud upon the court in her blatantly favorable rulings for Coca-Cola. This is the first time in Chicago judicial history that a lawyer has leveled such a serious charge against a federal judge. But Judge Manning, instead of stepping aside to have her improprieties assessed by an independent Judge, ruled on these charges herself - a practice that defies the principles of Anglo-Saxon law.

What happened next is like a plot from a John Grisham novel. After Judge Manning dismissed Kolody's lawsuit with a summary judgment, Ivy moved the case to the Appellate Court. But, in an apparent effort to censure the crusading attorney for his conduct, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his entrance to the bar, leaving Kolody without an attorney. What makes this even more intriguing is that all eleven Judges of the Appellate met in a rare, closed-door 'en banc' hearing to deny his request and offered no elaboration for their decision. After filing a motion for clarification of their ruling (under the 14th Amendment), Ivy, was denied 'en banc' a second time and given no reason given for the refusal.