They ignored employment laws. They ignored safety laws. They just ignored laws in general. Ie, the rule that taxi drivers must have commercial insurance is not just some scam to keep out other taxi companies, it is there because such a public service must have better coverage than the generic driver. Uber was basically lying the whole time, claiming it was just "ride sharing" when it was patently obvious to everyone that it was just another taxi service pretending not to be one in order to avoid regulation.
Maybe the regulations are bad, maybe not. It is irrelevant because that was the law! Just because this is the second wave of dot-com insanity does not mean we get to ignore the law.
No, it makes millions because millions of kids are hooked on their smart phones. They don't hate taxis, but they think using an app is so much cooler even though essentially the services are identical.
What the customers want are irrelevant if laws are broken. Ie, the uber drivers are employees yet in many places they were not granted the protections given to workers by law. If we overturn every law just because some customers want something means pretty soon all laws go away. If there are some artificial barriers to entry into the taxi market (and Uber is just a taxi company) then change those laws instead of ignoring the laws. And don't whine that laws are too hard to change. If you don't live in a democracy then try to get one; if you do have a democracy then you may as damn well make use of it.
Airbnb is no golden ray of light either, just like Uber it's skirting way too close to local ordinances (ie, is a home a hotel or not, and if so is it paying hotel taxes, etc).
And face it, "unicorn" is a stupid term anyway. But most of these like real unicorns will turn out to be fiction in the long run. This is all a repeat of the first dot-com era where people also could not tell the difference between fantasy and reality in their rush to get rich quick in the "new" economy.
But right to be forgotten didn't even exist a couple years ago, so it's hard to justify it as fundamental. Whereas the right to free speech was in the US constitution from the start (and stated as "inalienable" meaning that it doesn't derive from the state). Yes, Europe does not as a whole proclaim the right to free speech, but in the US it is *fundamental*.
As far as human rights, the right to be forgotten seems to be mostly used for people to hide their past transgressions and embarrassments, very often stuff that the people have a right to know (about their political and economic leaders). But the right to be forgotten seems somehow only to apply to Google, not the original newspapers. You can be forgotten, but only by people too lazy to go to the library and look stuff up. If this was a fundamental right then you'd think that newspapers would be required to censor their back issues lest anyone accidentally find out this stuff.
So that's the rub here. The US has fundamental rights that are not the same as EU fundamental rights. It's just that we treat free speech as vastly more important than making sure that public records are removed from the internet. Best recourse as I suggested earlier is for Google to pull out of France and/or the EU, or provide a nationwide firewall (China can teach you how).
Some of this was debated in Congress at times. A 2004 bill allowing importation was not approved, a later bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices was rejected, and Obamacare dropped the idea of it as well in order to get support of the pharma industry.
But Maine allows importing of drugs from Canada (or at least did in 2013). Maybe a few other states. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is highly opposed to it.
He's in his mid thirties and with too much money too spend already. It would be an awful shame if he had to lower the price and not be able to retire before forty.
The CEO uses the word "moron" a lot. Is that you? Also I do not think the CEO even remotely plans to use any of the profits for new research, especially given his history with other companies.
It is not legal in many cases. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Tr... Though I suspect this particular drug would fall under the exceptions.
The snag though is that there is a relatively short period during which this drug is used (100 pills or so?). Importing drugs is difficult and so is more practical if you have an ongoing use of the drug such as for a chronic condition.
Not quite true. There are additional hurdles. You can't just use the patent to replicate the drug, it is not a complete recipe of all steps and procedures. Next you have to get FDA approval of the drug, and prove that as a generic that it's as effective as the original. And you can't get that approval without having a supply of the original drug to test against. And they're not going to sell any samples of the drugs to competitors, which can not be purchased at a pharmacy. So instead of merely being expensive to replicate, it's expensive, time consuming, and impractical.
Even when you replicate the drug, the FDA requires you to prove the drugs is as effective as the original. The problem is that you can't get enough of the original drug in order to do the comparisons and get approval. The company is not making the drug generally available and is sold through direct channels only.
You can get approval for a generic copy of it. But you must prove that it compares the same or better than the original drug. That requires having plenty of the original drug to compare with, and Turing is not selling. The drug is not available on the open market or from any pharmacy. Several companies are doing the same thing to prevent drugs whose patents have expired from being replicated.
The price has dropped because it did blow up on social media. And I do not believe with his personality that he had any intention of funelling funds into research.
However, this is not just about the one company. The one company did bring to light the problem with overpriced drugs, the increase in drug prices, and the problems of why generics aren't readily available. The earlier BBC article about the problems of drug prices used Turing as one example among other similar drugs where prices were raised even though the patents had expired.
Because the pharma companies wrote the laws. I know, we look like a bunch of dumb rubes over here. But don't worry EU will catch up if and become just as corrupt if I read the signs right.
But you need a supply of the original drug in order to copy it. Patents as written down do not contain detailed information on how to replicate the product. And this company does not sell its drug on the open market (that is, you don't get this drug at the local pharmacy). Even doctors complain that they can't get this drug (daraprim) just to keep in local supply, so that when they do need to prescribe it there is a delay in getting the drug.
As far as this asshole CEO, he was already well hated before this came out. He was a former hedge fund manager. He was CEO of one bio tech company and later fired; their board sued him for $65 million claiming he was using the bio tech company to help pay back his former hedge fund investors.
And this keeps the prices high. Take some generic $10 pain killer that has some occasional side effects of gastric irritation, add a $5 component that reduces the irritation, now you take that new compound and renew your patent and sell the result for $100. But you can get exactly the same effect for $15 by taking two pills. Except that doctors prescribe the $100 option because they never see the actual price and assume that insurance will cover it all.
How much more is the actual cost of the migraine pill with the coating versus without the coating? Not cost to you, but cost that the insurance company is paying? And what is the cost to health care overall to maintain these inflated prices?
They don't do what big companies ask just because they want some bribes. Bush and Clinton were also rich. Not as much as Trump, but certainly rich enough that they never had to worry about hardships for the rest of their lives. What they wanted was power, and Trump wants that too. Power means a huge spigot of money to fund lots of elections and not even Trump has that much money.
The villain who upset the apple cart though. I can imagine a lot of pharmaceutical CEOs highly annoyed that after years of slowly raising prices, one new asshole raises them suddenly so that the whole world now takes notice.
There is no open market is the problem. Rather than sell to pharmacies which then sell to anyone legally allowed to by it, they have a private distribution channel. Several drugs have gone this route, almost certainly for the purpose of keeping control of drugs whose patents have expired.
Now a good trick is to convince doctors to not prescribe this drug if needed, but prescribe other drugs that may be effective, or even recommend a summer vacation to Canada. Part of the problem is that doctors are too far removed from costs, and they'll prescribe a drug without realizing the economic impact; even if patients can afford it because of insurance, it raises costs of drugs overall thus health costs continue to rise.
Left vs right are political stances. Not emotional or psychological conditions. In the US at least, we're stuck with two parties which means that each party must include many different conflicting viewpoints. But I forget, this is slashdot where everything must be simplified into stereotypes.
Moderated flamebait. Seriously, flamebait should not be used for moderation merely because you disagree with the viewpoint. If you are upset at my point of view, then say so.
Slashdot Mirror
They ignored employment laws. They ignored safety laws. They just ignored laws in general. Ie, the rule that taxi drivers must have commercial insurance is not just some scam to keep out other taxi companies, it is there because such a public service must have better coverage than the generic driver. Uber was basically lying the whole time, claiming it was just "ride sharing" when it was patently obvious to everyone that it was just another taxi service pretending not to be one in order to avoid regulation.
Maybe the regulations are bad, maybe not. It is irrelevant because that was the law! Just because this is the second wave of dot-com insanity does not mean we get to ignore the law.
No, it makes millions because millions of kids are hooked on their smart phones. They don't hate taxis, but they think using an app is so much cooler even though essentially the services are identical.
What the customers want are irrelevant if laws are broken. Ie, the uber drivers are employees yet in many places they were not granted the protections given to workers by law. If we overturn every law just because some customers want something means pretty soon all laws go away. If there are some artificial barriers to entry into the taxi market (and Uber is just a taxi company) then change those laws instead of ignoring the laws. And don't whine that laws are too hard to change. If you don't live in a democracy then try to get one; if you do have a democracy then you may as damn well make use of it.
Airbnb is no golden ray of light either, just like Uber it's skirting way too close to local ordinances (ie, is a home a hotel or not, and if so is it paying hotel taxes, etc).
And face it, "unicorn" is a stupid term anyway. But most of these like real unicorns will turn out to be fiction in the long run. This is all a repeat of the first dot-com era where people also could not tell the difference between fantasy and reality in their rush to get rich quick in the "new" economy.
But right to be forgotten didn't even exist a couple years ago, so it's hard to justify it as fundamental. Whereas the right to free speech was in the US constitution from the start (and stated as "inalienable" meaning that it doesn't derive from the state). Yes, Europe does not as a whole proclaim the right to free speech, but in the US it is *fundamental*.
As far as human rights, the right to be forgotten seems to be mostly used for people to hide their past transgressions and embarrassments, very often stuff that the people have a right to know (about their political and economic leaders). But the right to be forgotten seems somehow only to apply to Google, not the original newspapers. You can be forgotten, but only by people too lazy to go to the library and look stuff up. If this was a fundamental right then you'd think that newspapers would be required to censor their back issues lest anyone accidentally find out this stuff.
So that's the rub here. The US has fundamental rights that are not the same as EU fundamental rights. It's just that we treat free speech as vastly more important than making sure that public records are removed from the internet. Best recourse as I suggested earlier is for Google to pull out of France and/or the EU, or provide a nationwide firewall (China can teach you how).
The industry typically gets to write the laws. Not just the pharmaceutical industry, but all industries.
Some of this was debated in Congress at times. A 2004 bill allowing importation was not approved, a later bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices was rejected, and Obamacare dropped the idea of it as well in order to get support of the pharma industry.
But Maine allows importing of drugs from Canada (or at least did in 2013). Maybe a few other states. The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is highly opposed to it.
Amen.
He's in his mid thirties and with too much money too spend already. It would be an awful shame if he had to lower the price and not be able to retire before forty.
The CEO uses the word "moron" a lot. Is that you? Also I do not think the CEO even remotely plans to use any of the profits for new research, especially given his history with other companies.
It is not legal in many cases. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Tr...
Though I suspect this particular drug would fall under the exceptions.
The snag though is that there is a relatively short period during which this drug is used (100 pills or so?). Importing drugs is difficult and so is more practical if you have an ongoing use of the drug such as for a chronic condition.
Not quite true. There are additional hurdles. You can't just use the patent to replicate the drug, it is not a complete recipe of all steps and procedures. Next you have to get FDA approval of the drug, and prove that as a generic that it's as effective as the original. And you can't get that approval without having a supply of the original drug to test against. And they're not going to sell any samples of the drugs to competitors, which can not be purchased at a pharmacy. So instead of merely being expensive to replicate, it's expensive, time consuming, and impractical.
Even when you replicate the drug, the FDA requires you to prove the drugs is as effective as the original. The problem is that you can't get enough of the original drug in order to do the comparisons and get approval. The company is not making the drug generally available and is sold through direct channels only.
You can get approval for a generic copy of it. But you must prove that it compares the same or better than the original drug. That requires having plenty of the original drug to compare with, and Turing is not selling. The drug is not available on the open market or from any pharmacy. Several companies are doing the same thing to prevent drugs whose patents have expired from being replicated.
The price has dropped because it did blow up on social media. And I do not believe with his personality that he had any intention of funelling funds into research.
However, this is not just about the one company. The one company did bring to light the problem with overpriced drugs, the increase in drug prices, and the problems of why generics aren't readily available. The earlier BBC article about the problems of drug prices used Turing as one example among other similar drugs where prices were raised even though the patents had expired.
Because the pharma companies wrote the laws. I know, we look like a bunch of dumb rubes over here. But don't worry EU will catch up if and become just as corrupt if I read the signs right.
But you need a supply of the original drug in order to copy it. Patents as written down do not contain detailed information on how to replicate the product. And this company does not sell its drug on the open market (that is, you don't get this drug at the local pharmacy). Even doctors complain that they can't get this drug (daraprim) just to keep in local supply, so that when they do need to prescribe it there is a delay in getting the drug.
As far as this asshole CEO, he was already well hated before this came out. He was a former hedge fund manager. He was CEO of one bio tech company and later fired; their board sued him for $65 million claiming he was using the bio tech company to help pay back his former hedge fund investors.
And this keeps the prices high. Take some generic $10 pain killer that has some occasional side effects of gastric irritation, add a $5 component that reduces the irritation, now you take that new compound and renew your patent and sell the result for $100. But you can get exactly the same effect for $15 by taking two pills. Except that doctors prescribe the $100 option because they never see the actual price and assume that insurance will cover it all.
How much more is the actual cost of the migraine pill with the coating versus without the coating? Not cost to you, but cost that the insurance company is paying? And what is the cost to health care overall to maintain these inflated prices?
They don't do what big companies ask just because they want some bribes. Bush and Clinton were also rich. Not as much as Trump, but certainly rich enough that they never had to worry about hardships for the rest of their lives. What they wanted was power, and Trump wants that too. Power means a huge spigot of money to fund lots of elections and not even Trump has that much money.
The villain who upset the apple cart though. I can imagine a lot of pharmaceutical CEOs highly annoyed that after years of slowly raising prices, one new asshole raises them suddenly so that the whole world now takes notice.
There is no open market is the problem. Rather than sell to pharmacies which then sell to anyone legally allowed to by it, they have a private distribution channel. Several drugs have gone this route, almost certainly for the purpose of keeping control of drugs whose patents have expired.
Now a good trick is to convince doctors to not prescribe this drug if needed, but prescribe other drugs that may be effective, or even recommend a summer vacation to Canada. Part of the problem is that doctors are too far removed from costs, and they'll prescribe a drug without realizing the economic impact; even if patients can afford it because of insurance, it raises costs of drugs overall thus health costs continue to rise.
So the whole point of science is about getting more wealth?
Left vs right are political stances. Not emotional or psychological conditions. In the US at least, we're stuck with two parties which means that each party must include many different conflicting viewpoints. But I forget, this is slashdot where everything must be simplified into stereotypes.
Moderated flamebait. Seriously, flamebait should not be used for moderation merely because you disagree with the viewpoint. If you are upset at my point of view, then say so.
Does "every other country" mean EU and China only?