All this talk about federal funding, be it via contract or cooperative agreement or grant, would to a large degree be ameliorated if only those who rail against private sector companies took the time to read 35 USC 202, 35 USC 203, and FAR 52.227-11, paras. (d)(2) and (h).
In doing so they should specifically take note of the rights granted to the USG for "subject inventions" as to which the private entity elects to take title, including march-in rights.
As for the pharma industry itself, I do seem to recall stating I have represented individual companies over the years, starting with the pursuit of an idea through market introduction, including the law as it pertains to patents nearing the end of their terms and orphan drugs.
Of course, I have no information concerning you personally that permits me to make pejorative statements such as yours above.
Perhaps I am commenting because I have at various times represented drug companies is domestic and international patent matters, beginning from the commencement of R&D, through FDA approval, and through market introduction.
At the same time, I am intimately familiar with all the various sources of government funding, ranging from contracts to grants to cooperative agreements, as well as the statements of work performed under such funding instruments.
Yes, let the pharmaceutical companies take all the financial risk to develop new drugs through the process of trial and error (and expensive process), and then cheer all those companies who seek to profit without having assumed any of the risk. It sounds to me that in these instances the concept of risk/reward must take a backseat to that of no risk/reward.
Yes, your suggestion does need a lot of work. For example, if the PPACA is struck down by the Supreme Court in whole or in part, do you really want the President to be "fired" (obviously the constitution would not permit this) if the Supreme Court does not render a decision upholding the entirety of the Act? Of course the clear answer is "no".
Actually, it is difficult to take issue with the concerns he raises in his remarks. They are well made and articulately presented.
My only negative comment is that his remarks appear to have been made to an empty house, which is quite common. Speeches are regularly made under such circumstances for inclusion in the Congressional Record, but a speech limited to just inclusion in the CR is not an effective substitute for presentation before the Senate at large.
While I recognize that my views will almost certainly never be added to the Senate rules, this is one area where public attention should be brought to bear.
Moreover, I wish similar arguments were raised against other government programs such as the role of the TSA regarding airline security. Target individuals who exhibit well-recognized actions that have proven to be predictors of possible wrongdoers.
I have in the past criticized some of Senator Wyden's opinion, but this is most certainly not one of them.
Since Mr. Zittrain provided absolutely no legal analysis, which is what I am looking for, your parroting a link having not a scintilla of any legal analysis tells me that you have not discussed and provided here any analysis of what was in the proposed bill elucidating upon how it would come to pass that the teenage heart throb, or his eventual successor(s) would find themselves in jail if one practiced precisely what JB did using YT. Thus, your response can only be described as non-responsive.
Oh look at that! We call you on your bullshit claim again, and you're quickly moving goalposts. You're so full of it. You claimed we ignored willfulness and commercial advantage. You were wrong. Again.
I asked for links associated with legal analyses by the experts upon which you rely. Hence, the goalposts remain precisely in the very same place. Since no responsive links were provided, I am assuming that you have none.
For one who repeatedly demands "show me the facts", you seem to turn on a dime when the same is requested from you.
Since you appear disinclined or unable to provide a responsive answer to my request, I hereby withdraw it.
Thank you for your links, but they are not articles discussing any legal analysis of the bill's provisions. They are merely top level comments regarding personal opinions. I have opinions as well, but the links I ask about are any that engage in a legal analysis.
Anybody can say "Justin, or someone doing what he did, could be charged with a crime." I am interested in why they may believe this to be the case by reference to specific provisions of the then pending bill.
BTW, I am, of course, aware that you and others writing articles here have used the two terms. However, I am not aware of any analysis here of how these terms are interpreted by trial and appellate courts. It is links to the latter that my request is directed.
Taking you at your word that you (actually, you used "we") have covered both willfulness and commercial advantage, kindly do me the favor of providing links to same. They are, of course, important constraints that apply to criminal proceedings, but not to civil litigation, under copyright law.
I am heartened by the fact you took the time to review the USAM. If nothing else it should have provided some measure of understanding that the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.
Perhaps you should retry what you said you showed by referring to the US Attorney's Manual at "9-71.000 Copyright Law".
Let me suggest you take a bit of time reading and digesting what are know as the Third and Fourth Elements (the first two are relatively straightforward).
Thus armed, you should be positioned to provide a proper showing.
Perhaps you have a different view, but it is what a court "holds" that is the critical take away from a case. Here the CAFC made it only too clear that "use of the internet" was not a sufficient condition for an invention to meet the judicially defined tests for subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the patent laws.
"In reading through the details, CAFC's explanation was basically that since the patent described doing this abstract idea "on the internet," suddenly it became patentable."
The CAFC said:
"Nor does this court hold that use of an Internet website to practice such a method is either necessary or sufficient in every case to satisfy § 101."
Your description of the CAFC's holding does not comport with what the CAFC held.
“What happened was a misinformation campaign” is actually a quite accurate statement about how certain persons went about stirring up the masses who were unfamiliar with the proposed bill. For example, whenever a change was made to address feedback received from various quaters about some of the bill's provisions, this was many times not noted in criticism leveled at the bill. The rationale? "Well, it was in the original draft, so it will likely be re-inserted at some time in the future, and that is a big problem because eventually what is enacted into law will mirror the original bill."
The anti-SOPA rhetoric was of epic proportions, was laden with statements that were not in the then pending bill, cherry-picked provisions without noting that those provisions related back to other provisions and definitions that were material to limitations associated with the cherry-picked provisions, presented flawed analysis of constitutional law, etc., etc., etc.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill. The bill's sponsors were actually negotiating with themselves as it opponents refused to provide even an iota of constructive input into how the bill's provisions could be amended to address their concerns.
It was FUD then, and this article is little more than a misleading and disingenuous continuation of that FUD.
When Dave Barry, the noted humorist, made the following statement almost certainly he was quoting you:
“I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.”
I say "almost" because the quote is absent expletives.
Mr. Beadon joined the comments late in the day, and did so with what I consider to be a thoughtful and respectful comment. Thereafter, the comments moved on to other matters.
Why you choose to once again raise a matter that was no longer part of any subsequent discussion suggests to me that you are unable or unwilling to let a matter go.
In fact, in many ways your approach here towards someone against whom you hold a deep seated animus appears to mirror your comments some months back to Mr. Lowery, except in that case the situation was reversed and you were the one I believe was on the "hot seat". The difference here, of course, is that I am not inclined to resort to more direct and "flowery" language as Mr. Lowery did. I do agree, however, that his reference to your facial, anatomical features were a bit over the top.
Actually, I hope they succeed (by whatever metric they use to define success). It is always a good thing when other means for access to needed capital are created, and especially when you do not have to sell your soul, so to speak, as is far too often the case with groups like VCs, studios, labels, etc.
I mentioned in response to an earlier post that by using AC it is difficult, if not impossible, to track one's comments. I responded that this was a fair observation. Hence, I have registered with the site using the above pseudonym.
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
Re: Re:
In doing so they should specifically take note of the rights granted to the USG for "subject inventions" as to which the private entity elects to take title, including march-in rights.
As for the pharma industry itself, I do seem to recall stating I have represented individual companies over the years, starting with the pursuit of an idea through market introduction, including the law as it pertains to patents nearing the end of their terms and orphan drugs.
Of course, I have no information concerning you personally that permits me to make pejorative statements such as yours above.
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
Re: Re:
At the same time, I am intimately familiar with all the various sources of government funding, ranging from contracts to grants to cooperative agreements, as well as the statements of work performed under such funding instruments.
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden Slams Cybersecurity Legislation Proposals For Eroding Trust & Privacy
Re: Re: Incentives
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden Slams Cybersecurity Legislation Proposals For Eroding Trust & Privacy
My only negative comment is that his remarks appear to have been made to an empty house, which is quite common. Speeches are regularly made under such circumstances for inclusion in the Congressional Record, but a speech limited to just inclusion in the CR is not an effective substitute for presentation before the Senate at large.
While I recognize that my views will almost certainly never be added to the Senate rules, this is one area where public attention should be brought to bear.
Moreover, I wish similar arguments were raised against other government programs such as the role of the TSA regarding airline security. Target individuals who exhibit well-recognized actions that have proven to be predictors of possible wrongdoers.
I have in the past criticized some of Senator Wyden's opinion, but this is most certainly not one of them.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Mr. Zittrain provided absolutely no legal analysis, which is what I am looking for, your parroting a link having not a scintilla of any legal analysis tells me that you have not discussed and provided here any analysis of what was in the proposed bill elucidating upon how it would come to pass that the teenage heart throb, or his eventual successor(s) would find themselves in jail if one practiced precisely what JB did using YT. Thus, your response can only be described as non-responsive.
Oh look at that! We call you on your bullshit claim again, and you're quickly moving goalposts. You're so full of it. You claimed we ignored willfulness and commercial advantage. You were wrong. Again.
I asked for links associated with legal analyses by the experts upon which you rely. Hence, the goalposts remain precisely in the very same place. Since no responsive links were provided, I am assuming that you have none.
For one who repeatedly demands "show me the facts", you seem to turn on a dime when the same is requested from you.
Since you appear disinclined or unable to provide a responsive answer to my request, I hereby withdraw it.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for your links, but they are not articles discussing any legal analysis of the bill's provisions. They are merely top level comments regarding personal opinions. I have opinions as well, but the links I ask about are any that engage in a legal analysis.
Anybody can say "Justin, or someone doing what he did, could be charged with a crime." I am interested in why they may believe this to be the case by reference to specific provisions of the then pending bill.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am heartened by the fact you took the time to review the USAM. If nothing else it should have provided some measure of understanding that the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me suggest you take a bit of time reading and digesting what are know as the Third and Fourth Elements (the first two are relatively straightforward).
Thus armed, you should be positioned to provide a proper showing.
On the post: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration Of 'On The Internet' Software Patents
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration Of 'On The Internet' Software Patents
Re: Re: comport
On the post: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration Of 'On The Internet' Software Patents
"In reading through the details, CAFC's explanation was basically that since the patent described doing this abstract idea "on the internet," suddenly it became patentable."
The CAFC said:
"Nor does this court hold that use of an Internet website to practice such a method is either necessary or sufficient in every case to satisfy § 101."
Your description of the CAFC's holding does not comport with what the CAFC held.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
The anti-SOPA rhetoric was of epic proportions, was laden with statements that were not in the then pending bill, cherry-picked provisions without noting that those provisions related back to other provisions and definitions that were material to limitations associated with the cherry-picked provisions, presented flawed analysis of constitutional law, etc., etc., etc.
As the process progressed, it became abundantly clear that no matter what the bill's sponsors did to ameliorate concerns, it was all wasted effort because the anti-SOPA activists had absolutely no interest in anything other than the wholesale destruction of the bill. The bill's sponsors were actually negotiating with themselves as it opponents refused to provide even an iota of constructive input into how the bill's provisions could be amended to address their concerns.
It was FUD then, and this article is little more than a misleading and disingenuous continuation of that FUD.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.”
I say "almost" because the quote is absent expletives.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With kindest regards I remain...
Sincerely yours,
Pro Se
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why you choose to once again raise a matter that was no longer part of any subsequent discussion suggests to me that you are unable or unwilling to let a matter go.
In fact, in many ways your approach here towards someone against whom you hold a deep seated animus appears to mirror your comments some months back to Mr. Lowery, except in that case the situation was reversed and you were the one I believe was on the "hot seat". The difference here, of course, is that I am not inclined to resort to more direct and "flowery" language as Mr. Lowery did. I do agree, however, that his reference to your facial, anatomical features were a bit over the top.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>