CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:36am
So you're saying that .6% of the US population is groped every month by the TSA(assuming you only get groped once a month)? Even if we assume that everyone who has been groped will be groped again, we come up with 3.5% of the population in the US receiving a fondling by the TSA every year(upwards of 7% if we assume everyone is fondled just once). Call me skeptical, but it seems like 1.8 million/month is somewhat of an exaggeration, but that's just me.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 10 May 2011 @ 12:59pm
Re:
It really sounds like what Amazon has in its terms of service for its cloud, or maybe a step below. Amazon has the ability to terminate your account if your usage is "substantially" above normal, and the ability to go through your stuff "as [they] determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law." They have to do that to cover their butt from the contributory infringement side, but the question is whether it will actually be used as liberally as it is written.
Either way, "Big Music" will have to be drug kicking and screaming out of the late 90's(digital downloads) and into the 2010's before they finally acquiesce and allow people to enjoy their product.
Well, there's no adversarial part, except for ex parte examinations or litigation, but other than that you're completely correct.
My problem with the lowering this hypothetical bar is that we take patents out of the hands of examiners(i.e. people who read patents every day) and into the hands of either judges(with no technical degree) or lay jurors, and then everything is reviewed de novo anyway. And no matter what you do, your never going to reach the level of discovery that you'd get with a firm who has thrown 100k+ to find prior art.
Really, in my opinion, the best solution is a 2 tiered system, if the prior art has been reviewed then it's the old standard and if it's new art then the case is reviewed under the preponderance of the evidence, and to eliminate the strategy of flooding an examiner with prior art to keep that standard charge a premium for extra searches or the court could declare, in dicta, that it would be inequitable conduct(which negates a patent) for providing prior art which has no relevance. Since I don't think this will happen, Mike will have fodder for a rant proclaiming all patents to be a evil in approximately 4-6 months.
The other thing that the op-ed writer breezed over when looking at home much time patent examiners spend, most examiners have a specialty(such as brake pads), and typically have a pretty good grasp on what is out in the field and what is new(although there are limitations because you think you know most things).
Connick v. Myers gives us the test for what the government can reprimand their employees for. For a government employee to have any first amendment right, the employee must be saying something of public concern(such as "the hospital is run incorrectly" and not "I hate patient X") and if it is then you balance balance whether the citizens interest or the government interest in maintaining a functioning workplace is more important.
She made a mistake, she shouldn't have done it, she'll probably get another shot somewhere else and unless she's an imbecile she won't do it again.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 9:23pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
The most relevant passage:
"ANDAs that refer to DELALUTIN (hydroxyprogesterone caproate) injection, 125 mg/mL and 250 mg/mL, may be approved by the agency as long as they meet all relevant legal and regulatory requirements for approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling." Essentially, from reading your linked article, they filed paperwork saying they no longer made the drug(which is probably required by law).
An ANDA is the document you file(which costs relatively little) which makes it so you can use the safety and efficacy data from the original filing(which BMS did). You linked me to a document saying that anyone could make the drug as long as they followed the rules they normally had to follow.
I don't understand the outcry from doing what you're supposed to do by law and then allowing someone to manufacture a drug by filing some paperwork which makes it so they don't have to proceed with a myriad of tests and pay smaller filing fees.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 9:08pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
You're telling me that the link that David has to a forum post wasn't what he was going off about in his thesis paragraph(removal of supplements because they have drug counterparts)? All the other links are somewhat suspect and just say drugs have been removed, and don't really specify a reason(which I'm not jumping on the conspiracy train because they banned "A TAN 12X SUSPENSION" for not filing the proper paperwork to show its legit). What is wrong with removing drugs from the market which have not been approved?
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
My concerns aren't necessarily whether the low levels in the supplements will harm you, I'm sure they won't. My concerns are that concentrations can very, and interactions could dramatically change from dose to dose. I also think that a secondary effect is that it will bring to light that these things are actually drugs, so people will disclose them to doctors when they are ill, so Drs can make sure that other drugs won't interact with the supplement.
I have my own griefs with what the pharmaceutical industry does, and honestly think that most companies should be fined out the yin-yang(double profits?) for lying about a drug to the FDA. I don't necessarily think that means most drugs have inconsistent results, or that in the right hands the studies can't be put into the proper context(I've heard clinicians say that you take pharma studies and subtract 20% from efficacy to decide whether you want to use it or not).
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:03pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
So your solution is to privatize it and hope that private companies won't fall into the same mold as you believe the FDA is in(I'm not really sure that it's filled with all the evilness that some on this site think). Really, we're trading one thing for the other.
Snake oil actually has some use, but I don't believe it's for anything that it was actually marketed to cure. All I ask is that if you're making claims that what you sell(drug or "supplement") is somewhat verified by a 3rd party and it won't harm(or at least the harms are fully disclosed so those prescribing the medicines can use their best judgment).
To me, the story isn't taking these drugs off the market, it was originally allowing these supplements on the market. Let's give a hypo to show why I thought it was a problem: Supplement x contains aspirin, consumer buys it to cure his headache, since there is no concentration on the package(or instructions on how to take it) consumer takes too much an overdoses. The other problem is that with any supplement, the active ingredient is variable, so it's tough to actually use it to treat with the specificity that you want.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:37pm
Re: Re: And!
Lobo,
If I link you too 1500 articles which all claim to fix the same problem, would you have the time(or know how) to decide what is best for you? Or even if any of those drugs are more than snake oil? Hell, even now we have scumbags who sell bracelets with a refrigerator magnet claiming they improve balance, health, etc. and people buy them up thinking they work. In the wild "west" all I'd have to do is put (2R,3S,4R,5R)-2,3,5,4,6-Pentahydroxyhexana and dihydrogen monoxide on the label and people's eyes would glaze over(my product is sugar water, for those non-chemistry people). It's safe, it works(as a placebo), and ultimately nobody would know differently.
In your wild west we would degrade to selling products which are entirely safe, and could be marketed the best, not which compounds are shown to be safe and shown to work through scientific study. Sure, things cost more, but in this scenario we incrementally increase health, where your scenario we just spin our wheels with false advertising.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:19pm
Finally, treating supplements which alter your body chemistry as drugs, since there is no fundamental difference. Who knows, maybe we'll start to condemn the wild west that is the supplement industry(which is mostly bunk, where they can claim what they want without retribution, proof or even telling you what concentration they sell) if we could get around some of crappy legislation that is out there.
I can't wait for the time when the FDA requires the dose curves(i.e. showing that the drugs are the same as what's out there) to match what was originally filed before they allow the generics to come on the market, then we'll get the cry that Big Pharma is killing the generic industry by forcing them to show efficacy and safety for a product that acts differently.
You have a trade off with the FDA, we can either allow anyone in the market for little price and force regular people to decide which drugs work, or force companies to prove to the FDA that changing your body's chemistry is safe and efficacious.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 12:46pm
Re: Re: It's called agency law
Yeah, I paraphrased and left out reasonable person in both instances, but the point is still the same, if you direct someone to do a task and don't necessarily direct them how to do it, they can do the task in the manner they think it should be done.
Really, if it wasn't this way and I want to break the law, I just direct someone to help market online, impliedly illegally, and I get off because I "didn't know." The best way to limit the activity is to go after the people calling the shots, then they'll make sure that their agents(or affiliate in Mike's terms) will not commit the "evils" that congress decided to legislate against.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:59am
It's called agency law
And it's been around for 200 or so years. If you ask someone to do something and they do it wrong the liability falls on you if they believe that the actions were in the scope of what you directed them to do. Ignorance shouldn't be a defense, and to put in some light checks shouldn't be too much of an issue.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 10:53am
Re:
Mike is forgetting the key point of litigation, you want to be in the forum that is most favorable to your case. And it's not a question of the MOST favorable forum, it's just the minimal elements of jurisdiction(business in a state would do that).
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:48pm
As a believer
I think this is a excellent example of of fair use. The books were copied in whole into Watson, but it's extremely difficult to say that there would be a negative economic effect on the market, or that Watson would actually compete with any of the books.
I also think, in this case, you could make an argument that the inputting of all of the books was essentially inputting facts about human history necessary to understand language, and therefore the restriction of the use would hinder the arts(or even science).
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 2:56pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as "clearly being violated," are any of these companies US companies(US jurisdiction)? If not, how do you suggest they proceed with the litigation?
Just as a hypothetical, what do you do if a Chinese company is selling counterfeit goods using the internet as its advertising. There is no physical address to the company which can be found. E-mail is not sufficient for due process notification. Is this company litigation proof because you can't really comply with due process?
Note: This is not an argument for if we can't get due process then we shouldn't try. I've made my arguments for due process(prelim injunctions, informing contributory infringers), I'm just pointing out one of the downfalls of following due process to the 9snotification, court hearing, jury trial). As a procedural issue, that later is not needed(since this is not free speech related, IMO), and there are many well defined rules which can get legally enforceable rulings without going through the adversarial process.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 2:39pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They seized the means for contributory infringement. It's an analogous(although slightly more removed) step to seizing infringing material as it enters the country.
In terms of the injunction, I think it's actually a pretty good example of copyright law trumping the freedom of press/speech, and why this injunction is not abridging the freedom of speech. As for the actual specifics, the court in the one situation probably screwed up(having not dug through every single blog post to research this, I will not comment on probability). It happens, but does that mean that every seizure is destroying free speech, is copyright/trademark infringement something that might be a means for the government limiting speech(i.e. does free speech outweigh the other legitimate concerns), those are the underlying concerns that you'd have to weigh against the economic concerns from not enjoining almost certain infringers.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 2:23pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike,
If you made a cheat sheet with all of the relevant rulings that you've "cited" in terms of SC rulings, maybe some of us "trolls" who don't get to read 50 posts a day(with the relevant underlying cases) might have a place to go to so we can actually argue against your point.
CarlWeathersForPres (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 2:18pm
As far as Turow's hatred, read "1L," that should give you a reason why he hates law professors and doesn't care about the counter-intuitive academic arguments.
On the post: DHS Boss: 'Very, Very, Very Few People Get A Pat Down'; Reality: ~1.8 Million People Per Month
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re:
Either way, "Big Music" will have to be drug kicking and screaming out of the late 90's(digital downloads) and into the 2010's before they finally acquiesce and allow people to enjoy their product.
On the post: A Succinct Description For Why Assuming Patent Validity Is A Problem
My problem with the lowering this hypothetical bar is that we take patents out of the hands of examiners(i.e. people who read patents every day) and into the hands of either judges(with no technical degree) or lay jurors, and then everything is reviewed de novo anyway. And no matter what you do, your never going to reach the level of discovery that you'd get with a firm who has thrown 100k+ to find prior art.
Really, in my opinion, the best solution is a 2 tiered system, if the prior art has been reviewed then it's the old standard and if it's new art then the case is reviewed under the preponderance of the evidence, and to eliminate the strategy of flooding an examiner with prior art to keep that standard charge a premium for extra searches or the court could declare, in dicta, that it would be inequitable conduct(which negates a patent) for providing prior art which has no relevance. Since I don't think this will happen, Mike will have fodder for a rant proclaiming all patents to be a evil in approximately 4-6 months.
The other thing that the op-ed writer breezed over when looking at home much time patent examiners spend, most examiners have a specialty(such as brake pads), and typically have a pretty good grasp on what is out in the field and what is new(although there are limitations because you think you know most things).
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Kick A Student Out Of Nursing School For Blogging About A Patient?
Re: But there is a Constitutional issue
She made a mistake, she shouldn't have done it, she'll probably get another shot somewhere else and unless she's an imbecile she won't do it again.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
"ANDAs that refer to DELALUTIN (hydroxyprogesterone caproate) injection, 125 mg/mL and 250 mg/mL, may be approved by the agency as long as they meet all relevant legal and regulatory requirements for approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling." Essentially, from reading your linked article, they filed paperwork saying they no longer made the drug(which is probably required by law).
An ANDA is the document you file(which costs relatively little) which makes it so you can use the safety and efficacy data from the original filing(which BMS did). You linked me to a document saying that anyone could make the drug as long as they followed the rules they normally had to follow.
I don't understand the outcry from doing what you're supposed to do by law and then allowing someone to manufacture a drug by filing some paperwork which makes it so they don't have to proceed with a myriad of tests and pay smaller filing fees.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
I have my own griefs with what the pharmaceutical industry does, and honestly think that most companies should be fined out the yin-yang(double profits?) for lying about a drug to the FDA. I don't necessarily think that means most drugs have inconsistent results, or that in the right hands the studies can't be put into the proper context(I've heard clinicians say that you take pharma studies and subtract 20% from efficacy to decide whether you want to use it or not).
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re: And!
Snake oil actually has some use, but I don't believe it's for anything that it was actually marketed to cure. All I ask is that if you're making claims that what you sell(drug or "supplement") is somewhat verified by a 3rd party and it won't harm(or at least the harms are fully disclosed so those prescribing the medicines can use their best judgment).
To me, the story isn't taking these drugs off the market, it was originally allowing these supplements on the market. Let's give a hypo to show why I thought it was a problem: Supplement x contains aspirin, consumer buys it to cure his headache, since there is no concentration on the package(or instructions on how to take it) consumer takes too much an overdoses. The other problem is that with any supplement, the active ingredient is variable, so it's tough to actually use it to treat with the specificity that you want.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
Re: Re: And!
If I link you too 1500 articles which all claim to fix the same problem, would you have the time(or know how) to decide what is best for you? Or even if any of those drugs are more than snake oil? Hell, even now we have scumbags who sell bracelets with a refrigerator magnet claiming they improve balance, health, etc. and people buy them up thinking they work. In the wild "west" all I'd have to do is put (2R,3S,4R,5R)-2,3,5,4,6-Pentahydroxyhexana and dihydrogen monoxide on the label and people's eyes would glaze over(my product is sugar water, for those non-chemistry people). It's safe, it works(as a placebo), and ultimately nobody would know differently.
In your wild west we would degrade to selling products which are entirely safe, and could be marketed the best, not which compounds are shown to be safe and shown to work through scientific study. Sure, things cost more, but in this scenario we incrementally increase health, where your scenario we just spin our wheels with false advertising.
On the post: FDA Suddenly Bans Drugs That Have Been On The Market For Decades
I can't wait for the time when the FDA requires the dose curves(i.e. showing that the drugs are the same as what's out there) to match what was originally filed before they allow the generics to come on the market, then we'll get the cry that Big Pharma is killing the generic industry by forcing them to show efficacy and safety for a product that acts differently.
You have a trade off with the FDA, we can either allow anyone in the market for little price and force regular people to decide which drugs work, or force companies to prove to the FDA that changing your body's chemistry is safe and efficacious.
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
Re: Re: It's called agency law
Really, if it wasn't this way and I want to break the law, I just direct someone to help market online, impliedly illegally, and I get off because I "didn't know." The best way to limit the activity is to go after the people calling the shots, then they'll make sure that their agents(or affiliate in Mike's terms) will not commit the "evils" that congress decided to legislate against.
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
It's called agency law
On the post: Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
Re:
On the post: Sony's PS3 Lawsuit Is About Control, Not Piracy
How many IP lawsuits aren't about control of your product?
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
Re: Re: As a believer
On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?
As a believer
I also think, in this case, you could make an argument that the inputting of all of the books was essentially inputting facts about human history necessary to understand language, and therefore the restriction of the use would hinder the arts(or even science).
Either way, pretty good thought experiment.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just as a hypothetical, what do you do if a Chinese company is selling counterfeit goods using the internet as its advertising. There is no physical address to the company which can be found. E-mail is not sufficient for due process notification. Is this company litigation proof because you can't really comply with due process?
Note: This is not an argument for if we can't get due process then we shouldn't try. I've made my arguments for due process(prelim injunctions, informing contributory infringers), I'm just pointing out one of the downfalls of following due process to the 9snotification, court hearing, jury trial). As a procedural issue, that later is not needed(since this is not free speech related, IMO), and there are many well defined rules which can get legally enforceable rulings without going through the adversarial process.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In terms of the injunction, I think it's actually a pretty good example of copyright law trumping the freedom of press/speech, and why this injunction is not abridging the freedom of speech. As for the actual specifics, the court in the one situation probably screwed up(having not dug through every single blog post to research this, I will not comment on probability). It happens, but does that mean that every seizure is destroying free speech, is copyright/trademark infringement something that might be a means for the government limiting speech(i.e. does free speech outweigh the other legitimate concerns), those are the underlying concerns that you'd have to weigh against the economic concerns from not enjoining almost certain infringers.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you made a cheat sheet with all of the relevant rulings that you've "cited" in terms of SC rulings, maybe some of us "trolls" who don't get to read 50 posts a day(with the relevant underlying cases) might have a place to go to so we can actually argue against your point.
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Next >>