Slashdot Mirror
Patents and Eminent Domain
mrbill writes "Interesting take on the Eminent Domain case now before the Supreme Court. Could the same logic behind using Eminent Domain to take real property be used to take a Patent? Apparently some states are contemplating taking drug company patents to force lower drug prices." From the article: "Patents are the key to huge drug-company profits. The industry will fight vociferously to protect them. In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional. "
because the drug companies wouldnt lower prices. Although I would say that this would easily be overturned/outlawed by the bought and paid for Congress. Although if they were to take patents for drugs, whats to stop them for taking patents for everything else?
Its a shame that the states are doing what the federal govt. should be doing these days.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
The summary above refers to Susette Kelo v. City of New London. The city is attempting to use eminent domain to take some land from people, and sell it to a private developer to develop. (I emphasize private because the case hinges on that) Cnn had a good write up here
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional.
With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution. Not that it will stop political bodies from trying it.
Of course, the "huge profits" that phamaceutical companies get from selling a drug under patent are not all that great. Not after paying for the cost of creating the drug... not to mention a dozon other drugs that don't make it through the FDA approval process.
> I don't see how it would be assuming there's due process.
The US Constitution gives authority over patents to the US Congress, not to the states.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to grant patents and copyrights. However, it is not specifically denied to the states - it is up to Congress, under the Supremacy Clause, to decide whether to allow states to regulate the same areas. For example, states had independent copyright laws until the 1970s, until Congress took that power away. With that said, it's a meaningless issue here, as the Federal government has in fact blocked parallel state rulemaking regarding patents.
However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the 11th amendment make it hard to prosecute state governments for patent or copyright infringement. So a statewide agency could just start making patented drugs, and it would be hard to stope them
It is doubtful that the patent is valid; IM bots go back to the dark ages of the IRC networks. There is plenty of prior art.
It should not be hard at all to stop them unless they have a VERY strong economy on their own. If the feds wanted to stop states from doing things like this, how hard would it be to cut off ALL federal funding and aid? How long do you really think it would take for the state to give in? California was in deep crap not too long ago because pollution levels were too high in major cities (LA I think). The US govt. threatened to take away all federal road funding and CA cleaned up it's act fairly quickly (not sure if the problem is competely resolved though).
Fair Market Value: The price that an interested but not desperate buyer would be willing to pay and an interested but not desperate seller would be willing to accept on the open market assuming a reasonable period of time for an agreement to arise.
For comparison, we would need to know what the return on invested capital is.
This, too, is easily available. Return on equity is a good measure of whether investors in drug companies are enjoying disproportionate returns. For Pfizer, RoE is 13.46%; for Eli Lilly 17.06%; for Merck 38.46%. For Home Depot, RoE is 21.71%; for Wal-Mart 22.99%; for Staples 18.45%; for Anheuser-Busch 82.26%. The conclusion is the same.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Earnings per share is a totally useless number, much more telling is profit margin.
EPS will tell you whether revenues are being utterly devoured by marketing expenses, which is the original assertion I was responding to. If you examine the comparative profit margins of these companies, you arrive at the same conclusion.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The industry will fight vociferously to protect them.
If only the citizenry of the US would fight as hard for our REAL property rights! Over the last several years, eminent domain has been used by many municipalities to force people off of the property they OWN so that developers like Wal-Mart can build stores. Some examples:
Alameda Square in Denver Colorado: The City of Denver is considering condemning the shopping center so that Wal-Mart can build a super center. story
Alabaster, Alabama: Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart in the town of 24,000. The local government is all for it because they're "not receiving enough in tax revenue to support the town." Trouble is, there are a few property owners that don't want to sell. Answer, local government is resorting to eminent domain. They're citing the increase in tax revenue as the "public good" that justifies condemnation of the property. story
Ardmore, Pennsylvania. A local government plan to "revitalize" the town of Ardmore has officials seeking to use eminent domain to oust property owners and demolish several historic buildings. story
New London, Conneticut. (This is the Supreme Court case that's being heard and was referenced in the posted article). The town is attempting to use eminent domain to forcibly evict seven property owners and sieze their property so that a private company can develop more tax-profitable properties on the land. story
Lakewood, Ohio. Scenic Park, a middle class neighborhood, was seized under eminent domain. The homes were deemed "blighted" because they didn't conform to certain criteria. They didn't have three bedrooms, two baths, an attached garage or central air. Incidentally, the mayor's house, in another neighborhood, doesn't fit these criteria, either. The homes were razed in order to put in a mall and high-end condos. story
Ogden, Utah. The Mayor and City Council want to demolish 34 homes and 6 businesses in order to erect a Wal-Mart (there's that Wal-Mart again) Super Center.
Clemson, SC (right up I-26 from me). Pickens County Council voted to invoke eminent domain to condemn a tract of land zoned residential for the purpose of building a Wal-Mart. story
Between the years 1998-2002, TEN THOUSAND properties were seized via eminent domain in order for the municipalities to sell to private developers!!! The right to own land and property is directly tied to all our other rights. Now, I'm not a big, Anti-Corporation type of guy as I recognize that corporations are not vast, faceless entities, but are made up of individuals that work, eat, sleep, and all that. I have BECOME extremely anti-Wal-Mart, though, in part due to this eminent domain thing and also because of their recent trouble with the labor laws. I don't begrudge Wal-Mart's right to exist, but they've demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to tight rope the law and even break it if necessary in order to continue growing. They're like a virus that must be stopped. I'm on a personal boycott of Wal-Mart. If something isn't done about governments seizing property rightfully owned by law-abiding individuals, a huge pillar of our democratic republic is going to be severely compromised. This is no joke, people. This poses one of the most severe threats to our country.
If you want to keep abreast of the situation, here are a couple of good links. And I especially want to thank Neal Boortz (national talk radio guy, Libertarian). Were it not for him, FAR fewer pe