Government should revoke the patent when it is being abused.
I think we can all agree in this case. But legally, how do you define this abuse? You'd have one hell of a time in court. And the fact that this isn't the only solution makes it more difficult...why is this abuse if there's a much less expensive solution?...shouldn't consumers just be buying that? Why should we force Porsche to sell at VW prices?
Assuming that the House, Senate, and the President agree to make an example of a particularly badly-behaved corporation, are they able to place some or all of the effected patents into the public domain?
Doubtful without a change to the Constitution. Intellectual Property Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
"And items like this the USA should just declare eminent domain and manufacture/distribute them at cost. This goes for any patented medicine not made available in sufficient quantity and at cost with not more than reasonable profit."
Disclaimer: I think what Mylan is doing is outrageous.
That said, I don't see how you're going to get pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs if you're going to take away the profit incentive. They spend a shit ton of money in development, and it takes years to get it all through FDA approval. I learned a lot when I invested in a small drug company that had a drug going through clinical trials. It was several years before they were able market it, and that was after several years of worries that it might never get through those trials. Who's going to invest in these companies unless there's a good risk/reward payoff?
Not a Tesla investor here, so I don't know much about it's valuation. But I do want to point out that I see them on the road multiple times a day here in the northern VA area (granted, this is a relatively wealthy part of the country), so that tends to make me believe there's a bit more to the company than speculation.
I see what you did there.. and I tip my hat to you.
What? Did it move the stock price? This isn't exactly a place where big money hangs out.
I read the first sentence, and was nearly going to pipe up asking why this was marked down. But then you had to aim below the belt in the second. Just because you and I disagree on a lot of issues is no reason to be insulting.
Don't worry, Jared and Company will be charged soon also - with treason.
You clearly don't understand the definition of treason. I suggest you read the part of the Constitution that does define it, an try to come up with how this would fit.
Not a Tesla investor here, so I don't know much about it's valuation. But I do want to point out that I see them on the road multiple times a day here in the northern VA area (granted, this is a relatively wealthy part of the country), so that tends to make me believe there's a bit more to the company than speculation.
Sure, because if an entrepreneur doesn't get things 100% right, then he's a failure. But don't let the fact that 8 of 10 businesses fail within the first 18 months let that affect your opinion of Musk. What's his failure rate been?
And this is why cable should have been treated as a monopoly for so many years, as they've been gouging consumers. Now they've got to compete, and don't know how. Competition is good.
Why does bullshit like this get published? It's a non-random survey. It provides no useful scientific evidence. It doesn't even bother to compare the numbers with other industries. But you can be damned sure people with an agenda link to it.
As a software engineer who used to do that kind of work, it's simple. You don't stop communicating just because you're working from home. You email, you chat, you call, and you report your status as required. Yes, not all bugs are the same, and when you're stumped by one, you speak up, and maybe ask for help, or explain that this one's going to take longer. Sure, you could try to game the system here and there. But remember, you're being compared to your peers, and if they're killing a dozen bugs a week, and you're doing half that on a regular basis, it's going to show.
Back when I started telecommuting in '99, I lead a small team that worked from home every Monday. We still kept to being available during "core hours", and letting others know when we'd be offline...or even out running errands. I wouldn't recommend it for every day in a development effort...you gain a lot in face to face discussions. But, a few times a week, certainly.
This. I save a couple hours of prep and commuting every day I don't have to drive to the office. Whoever came up with open cubicle farms should be shot, especially if you're forcing developers into them.
This argument falls flat. If you are the supervisor of these people, set milestones, and track them. If they're making them, great. If not, then deal with the issue. And if someone can crush it fast, and then slack off half the day, who gives a shit?
I started periodically working from home when our company launched a pilot telecommuting program back around '99. I found that, at the time, as a coder and small team lead, that we were actually being more productive on our work from home days, every Monday. We didn't have the frequent interruptions that we had in the cubicle farm at work, and we were able to communicate as much or little as we needed. It's certainly not for everyone, especially if you have pets, kids, a spouse, or other distractions at home. We did get some pushback from a few idiot managers who felt that they couldn't keep an eye on us. I told one of them that if he wasn't able to track our work, then he should be fired for incompetence. We all had milestones, and as long as we were on schedule, then that's how you track the work. As far as the summary claiming it's not for engineering, I'll call BS, at least for software development. Now, as a manager, I still work from home periodically whenever I need uninterrupted focus time...proposals, metrics, etc., and we all dial in for conference calls.
This has zip to do with "proper medical treatment". It's purely optional, just like most nose jobs, and tummy tucks, and as such there's no reason for it not to be up to market forces. Now, if this was treating some contagious disease, then you'd have a point.
"The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote."
Fake argument tossed around by the losing side to console themselves. There is no "popular vote". Nobody campaigns to win the "popular vote", and if there was, each of the candidates would have ran a different campaign with possibly the same outcome...but, we'll never know, because again, there's no such thing.
As a life long (40+ yrs of voting) R voter, I was most definitely voting against HRC, but I could not, and did not, vote for the R candidate for the first time in my life. He had simply said too much stupid shit during the campaign that I simply couldn't, and so I lodged a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well that HRC was going to win my state anyway. If it hadn't been for the open SCOTUS seat, I might have considered voting for her even.
Slashdot Mirror
Government should revoke the patent when it is being abused.
I think we can all agree in this case. But legally, how do you define this abuse? You'd have one hell of a time in court. And the fact that this isn't the only solution makes it more difficult...why is this abuse if there's a much less expensive solution?...shouldn't consumers just be buying that? Why should we force Porsche to sell at VW prices?
Assuming that the House, Senate, and the President agree to make an example of a particularly badly-behaved corporation, are they able to place some or all of the effected patents into the public domain?
Doubtful without a change to the Constitution.
Intellectual Property Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
"And items like this the USA should just declare eminent domain and manufacture/distribute them at cost. This goes for any patented medicine not made available in sufficient quantity and at cost with not more than reasonable profit."
Disclaimer: I think what Mylan is doing is outrageous.
That said, I don't see how you're going to get pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs if you're going to take away the profit incentive. They spend a shit ton of money in development, and it takes years to get it all through FDA approval. I learned a lot when I invested in a small drug company that had a drug going through clinical trials. It was several years before they were able market it, and that was after several years of worries that it might never get through those trials. Who's going to invest in these companies unless there's a good risk/reward payoff?
Not a Tesla investor here, so I don't know much about it's valuation. But I do want to point out that I see them on the road multiple times a day here in the northern VA area (granted, this is a relatively wealthy part of the country), so that tends to make me believe there's a bit more to the company than speculation.
I see what you did there.. and I tip my hat to you.
What? Did it move the stock price? This isn't exactly a place where big money hangs out.
AmiMoJo,
I read the first sentence, and was nearly going to pipe up asking why this was marked down. But then you had to aim below the belt in the second. Just because you and I disagree on a lot of issues is no reason to be insulting.
Don't worry, Jared and Company will be charged soon also - with treason.
You clearly don't understand the definition of treason. I suggest you read the part of the Constitution that does define it, an try to come up with how this would fit.
"I expect a lot of people aren't gifted with common fucking sense. "
I expect that it's not common if less than half of the people are "gifted" with it.
Not a Tesla investor here, so I don't know much about it's valuation. But I do want to point out that I see them on the road multiple times a day here in the northern VA area (granted, this is a relatively wealthy part of the country), so that tends to make me believe there's a bit more to the company than speculation.
Sure, because if an entrepreneur doesn't get things 100% right, then he's a failure. But don't let the fact that 8 of 10 businesses fail within the first 18 months let that affect your opinion of Musk. What's his failure rate been?
And this is why cable should have been treated as a monopoly for so many years, as they've been gouging consumers. Now they've got to compete, and don't know how. Competition is good.
Why does bullshit like this get published? It's a non-random survey. It provides no useful scientific evidence. It doesn't even bother to compare the numbers with other industries. But you can be damned sure people with an agenda link to it.
Best comeback of the week! Bravo!
As a software engineer who used to do that kind of work, it's simple. You don't stop communicating just because you're working from home. You email, you chat, you call, and you report your status as required. Yes, not all bugs are the same, and when you're stumped by one, you speak up, and maybe ask for help, or explain that this one's going to take longer. Sure, you could try to game the system here and there. But remember, you're being compared to your peers, and if they're killing a dozen bugs a week, and you're doing half that on a regular basis, it's going to show.
Back when I started telecommuting in '99, I lead a small team that worked from home every Monday. We still kept to being available during "core hours", and letting others know when we'd be offline...or even out running errands. I wouldn't recommend it for every day in a development effort...you gain a lot in face to face discussions. But, a few times a week, certainly.
This. I save a couple hours of prep and commuting every day I don't have to drive to the office. Whoever came up with open cubicle farms should be shot, especially if you're forcing developers into them.
This argument falls flat. If you are the supervisor of these people, set milestones, and track them. If they're making them, great. If not, then deal with the issue. And if someone can crush it fast, and then slack off half the day, who gives a shit?
I started periodically working from home when our company launched a pilot telecommuting program back around '99. I found that, at the time, as a coder and small team lead, that we were actually being more productive on our work from home days, every Monday. We didn't have the frequent interruptions that we had in the cubicle farm at work, and we were able to communicate as much or little as we needed. It's certainly not for everyone, especially if you have pets, kids, a spouse, or other distractions at home. We did get some pushback from a few idiot managers who felt that they couldn't keep an eye on us. I told one of them that if he wasn't able to track our work, then he should be fired for incompetence. We all had milestones, and as long as we were on schedule, then that's how you track the work. As far as the summary claiming it's not for engineering, I'll call BS, at least for software development. Now, as a manager, I still work from home periodically whenever I need uninterrupted focus time...proposals, metrics, etc., and we all dial in for conference calls.
+1 sir
Showing someone on paper that they've made an error in their calculations, and NOT billing them, is NOT practicing.
This has zip to do with "proper medical treatment". It's purely optional, just like most nose jobs, and tummy tucks, and as such there's no reason for it not to be up to market forces. Now, if this was treating some contagious disease, then you'd have a point.
I bet I could find a nurse or technician, and a willing compatible blood donor for about a quarter of the price.
+1
"The vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. She won the popular vote."
Fake argument tossed around by the losing side to console themselves. There is no "popular vote". Nobody campaigns to win the "popular vote", and if there was, each of the candidates would have ran a different campaign with possibly the same outcome...but, we'll never know, because again, there's no such thing.
As a life long (40+ yrs of voting) R voter, I was most definitely voting against HRC, but I could not, and did not, vote for the R candidate for the first time in my life. He had simply said too much stupid shit during the campaign that I simply couldn't, and so I lodged a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate, knowing full well that HRC was going to win my state anyway. If it hadn't been for the open SCOTUS seat, I might have considered voting for her even.
Your anecdotal evidence is not data.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/am...