Ummm... Google does not have the express intention and authority to throw me in jail and keep me there... for any of the many inadvertent federal felonies I may or may not have committed, depending on the attitude, mood, and politics of the DA.
Plainly untrue. I'm a patent attorney and I have a colleague who flow bomber missions in operation desert storm. Very nice guy (unexpected given that he's both military and a lawyer... and a litigator at that!), very competent...
So one option certainly is 3 years of law school and then go into patent law. You have a HUGE leg up on any competition and could pay back the loans without difficulty.
And his former employer will be MORE than happy to help hang the guy.
From the Booz website statement:
"News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter."
+1 to this...
The original source article says
"In the early years, drugs easily beat the placebo: They were, on average, 4.5 times as effective, where effectiveness means how well they lowered blood pressure, vanquished tumors, lifted depression or did whatever else they were intended to.
* * *
Experts disagree on why that should be, but suspicions range from the U.S. regulatory process to basic biology."
The standard wisdom in the industry, according to those who work in the field, is that the FDA is not terribly concerned with efficacy. Any new drug needs to merely be more effective that nothing at all. It cares first and foremost about safety- that's what politicians hear about ("My great aunt Hilda was on drug X and it killed her!!"), so that's what the FDA looks at. New drugs are not removed from the market because of failures of efficacy, but safety issues. Think of Vioxx- an effective pain drug that worked just like ibuprofen, but with better GI safety. It was pulled because of increases in the risk of adverse cardiac issues, especially in patients at high risk for cardiac events, at high doses of the drug. (to be fair, part of the issue was that the company looked like it had covered up the cardiac data... but "safety" killed that product.)
This is different in other countries- efficacy is (relatively) more important in e.g., Japan, and drugs that are equally effective as older drugs have harder times being approved, and safety is not the end-all, be-all.
As a patent attorney working directly in innovator/generic patent battles... I can tell you that generic drug companies make TONS of money on drugs that are out of patent. As do the brand companies- indeed, a common strategy has become for the brand to market their own generic version (yep- same stuff, maybe different color/shape... lower cost) once their patent or FDA exclusivity runs out. The "problem" is that one will not sustain the remarkable profit margins and growth rate shareholders have come to expect from big pharma.
And even generics are really spoiled and will not bother to develop a product if they expect sales to be less than ~$10 million/year.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... Google does not have the express intention and authority to throw me in jail and keep me there ... for any of the many inadvertent federal felonies I may or may not have committed, depending on the attitude, mood, and politics of the DA.
Plainly untrue. I'm a patent attorney and I have a colleague who flow bomber missions in operation desert storm. Very nice guy (unexpected given that he's both military and a lawyer... and a litigator at that!), very competent... So one option certainly is 3 years of law school and then go into patent law. You have a HUGE leg up on any competition and could pay back the loans without difficulty.
And his former employer will be MORE than happy to help hang the guy. From the Booz website statement: "News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter."
+1 to this... The original source article says "In the early years, drugs easily beat the placebo: They were, on average, 4.5 times as effective, where effectiveness means how well they lowered blood pressure, vanquished tumors, lifted depression or did whatever else they were intended to. * * * Experts disagree on why that should be, but suspicions range from the U.S. regulatory process to basic biology." The standard wisdom in the industry, according to those who work in the field, is that the FDA is not terribly concerned with efficacy. Any new drug needs to merely be more effective that nothing at all. It cares first and foremost about safety- that's what politicians hear about ("My great aunt Hilda was on drug X and it killed her!!"), so that's what the FDA looks at. New drugs are not removed from the market because of failures of efficacy, but safety issues. Think of Vioxx- an effective pain drug that worked just like ibuprofen, but with better GI safety. It was pulled because of increases in the risk of adverse cardiac issues, especially in patients at high risk for cardiac events, at high doses of the drug. (to be fair, part of the issue was that the company looked like it had covered up the cardiac data... but "safety" killed that product.) This is different in other countries- efficacy is (relatively) more important in e.g., Japan, and drugs that are equally effective as older drugs have harder times being approved, and safety is not the end-all, be-all.
As a patent attorney working directly in innovator/generic patent battles... I can tell you that generic drug companies make TONS of money on drugs that are out of patent. As do the brand companies- indeed, a common strategy has become for the brand to market their own generic version (yep- same stuff, maybe different color/shape... lower cost) once their patent or FDA exclusivity runs out. The "problem" is that one will not sustain the remarkable profit margins and growth rate shareholders have come to expect from big pharma. And even generics are really spoiled and will not bother to develop a product if they expect sales to be less than ~$10 million/year.