41–50 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, let's leave out software. Not that it's not relevant, but it's a black hole for this crowd. One should not try to understand everything by analogy with software.
Cars, then?
Markush groups, as GP mentioned, are there specifically for chemical patents. So that's what's shaped the patent law, not software or cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the current stagnated Congress session possibly but now whenever better legislation comes up any attempts to claim existing rules are "good enough" is objectively wrong.
"objectively wrong" no longer exists in politics, if it ever did.
You can claim that the government was wrong in its pursuit of this case but that doesn't suddenly mean Congress has no work to do.
At minimum codifying what makes it inappropriate for the government to take the action it attempted would be valuable.
Congress is supposed to clarify if the Executive and Judicial do not agree on the meaning of their laws.
Thus "objectively wrong" isn't about which side is right, it is that agreement doesn't exist.
You could claim there was an unimportant misunderstanding after the first but after so many it is obvious there is a disconnect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really though. Even with the current level of regulation we have more than enough scandals with, say, artificial tears that blinded people who used them.
It's all a trade off. We can have more affordable medicine by importing it. This means more people will be able to access it, meaning less bankruptcies, which isn't any good for one's health. Will it be less safe than the ones you can currently get for an exorbitant prices? Marginally, probably. Overall, society can benefit from letting people import their medicine. It will also drive down prices and force big pharma…
I've been taking the "blockbuster drug", Humira/Adalimumab, for more than 10 years. Humira alone is estimated to have generated US$200 billion in profits for a single company. Its history, its legal and commercial maneuvers are appalling and possibly the poster child for what is wrong with the patent system. And how public money originally funds much of the research into these drugs. This year I finally started takin…
I followed Lina Kahn (FTC chair) on Twitter before Biden appointed her, and I was kind of blown away that it happened. She had a very clear philosophical opposition to a lot of the way things are done in this country. And I mean, I followed her because I agreed! But my preferences are not mainstream. Amazing to see her slinging rocks at giants from this position.
Khan's utter failure to execute on her goals has imo set back the anti-trust movement in this country heavily. Now every time anti trust gets brought up people think about how the government lost 5 cases in a row and consider it a waste.
It demonstrates how weak and toothless are current laws are, and shows a desperate need for Congressional action.
Before, when you brought up Congressional action on anti-trust it would get waived away with: "The FTC has the powers they need and aren't using them. There's no need for Congress to act".
If someone tried to raise those objections today, they looked silly.
The fact of the matter is the executive branch needed to walk into the buzz-saw to demonstrate that the current laws are insufficient and prompt Congress to act. Now it's a matter of putting public pressure on Congress to act.
At first I thought this was about minor changes to formulations that can be granted new patents, a problem which seems to me to be to be outside the FTC's purview. It looks like the problem is more like out and out fraud: Brand drug manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their patents are properly listed. Yet certain manufacturers have submitted patents for listing in the Orange Book that claim neither the refere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this bandied about so much, but I've never heard justification that the cases weren't well built or that they weren't good cases to bring. The wicked thing about case law is that it builds and builds. The courts have been extremely pro big business for a long time, and it's hard to figure out how anything ever changes or gets better from here. Trying to right this hell is going to take a lot of miserable attem…
cases that lose are not well built. No excuses. Losing a case further entrenches the precedent against you, there's no silver lining.
If you're losing on Constitutional grounds, I agree with you. But if you're losing the case on legal grounds it can absolutely be a silver lining, since it can demonstrate to Congress a need to legislate (I know, I know, a foreign concept for Congress).
Consider Section 230, though. It was passed because the Supreme Court ruled on a case in a way that irritated Congress. The Courts were bound because the law was what it was. But those Court cases prompted Congress to act. The actual rulings from the Court were horrendous precedent, and if that's where the policymaking stopped the internet would have been a disaster. But Congress acted and passed Section 230.
I've been taking the "blockbuster drug", Humira/Adalimumab, for more than 10 years. Humira alone is estimated to have generated US$200 billion in profits for a single company. Its history, its legal and commercial maneuvers are appalling and possibly the poster child for what is wrong with the patent system. And how public money originally funds much of the research into these drugs. This year I finally started takin…
[flagged]
Saying 'not to be pedantic' doesn't make it any less so.