Jump to content

US Politics: Spicey Onion Indigestion in the Age of Trump


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not in this case. Being an immigrant is a true status whether or not the country of residence knows you are there or has consented to you being there. The lawfulness of your immigration is the legal question.

Being in possession of an item is an objective fact, the question of how you obtained it and whether it was lawful of you to obtain it in the manner you did is a legal matter.

Every time you see someone with a new thing do you question whether they obtained it by legal means?

No, the police and border control might. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Savannah said:

No, but the police and border control might. 

Actually, Prez Orange Shit Thing does favor 'stop and frisk' polices, which is about as fucking racist as it can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

 The point being, terrorists come in all races and should be noted as such.  If a white mass shooter did the shooting because of Radical Christianity, then they should be called a 'Radical Christian Terrorist'. 

Sure.  If that's the case, I'd agree. wholeheartedly  We've seen a few examples over the past couple decades of this..

But that isn't what was suggested.  What was suggested was this:

Quote

I'd like to ask everyone to start using Radical Christian Terrorist every time some white guy goes on a racist killing spree.

Which is not really what you are describing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know, a lot of this argument is like, "In order to get X to do useful stuff, we have to give them a monopoly." That's not how really think about the majorities of businesses. Usually, competition is considered a good thing.

And then you have the fact that often patents can be used to stifle innovations because of patent trolls and defensive patenting. I'd suspect the majority of victims of these things are actually start ups.

Well, you act is if our public research infrastructure cant be changed or improved.  I wouldn't assume that is the case. But, also, I'd say, "so what if private companies have to bear the cost of some of the research?" I'm sure if somebody sees an opportunity to make money, they will do the research necessary to make a product, particularly if the public has borne the initial cost of the research. There is still money to made, particularly if your the first guy with idea to the market.

I'm just pointing out that there would likely be some severe unintended consequences of shortening patent term for pharma, biotech, and medical device companies. It's already relatively difficult for most health care startups to raise money from investors, who are typically venture capitalist firms or the VC arm of a large corporation.  It often takes 10+ years  and tens of millions to over 100 million for a startup to develop a drug or medical device and bring it to market, and then there's always the risk that the product fails in clinical trials.  Compare that to software startups like Facebook, instagram, whatsapp, etc., where it's possible to achieve massive returns in a relatively short period of time.  As you can imagine, investing in pharma, biotech, and medical device startups is less attractive for many investors.  Doesn't seem fair to me or a good idea to make pharma patent terms shorter than software patents.

Patents are a critical asset for a startup trying to raise capital.  For pharmaceuticals, patents are critical because it is generally trivial to copy and manufacture the drug.  If you weaken patent rights, you are making an already challenging situation even more difficult.  It will be even less attractive for investors to invest in the medical field, and without this investment, there are no startups.  

Sure, startups have to worry about other peoples' patents, at least until they expire.  But that's a fair exchange for the ability to get your own patents and to encourage competitors to disclose what they are doing.  Trolls actually tend to target wealthy companies with deep pockets, but some trolls are more indiscriminate and just hope to settle with as many people as possible.

Sure, you can try changing the public research infrastructure, but that's a massive undertaking, and it's not clear to me how you would do it in a way that works better than what we have now.  Nationalizing the medical R&D industry doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

 

Sure, you can try changing the public research infrastructure, but that's a massive undertaking, and it's not clear to me how you would do it in a way that works better than what we have now.  Nationalizing the medical R&D industry doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me.

yeah.  It's surprising to me that people are advocating this now, of all times.

Do we really want Trump anywhere near the purse strings that dictate what kind of drugs get researched?  That's crazy to me.

 

seems to me the only thing worse that profit driven research of new drugs is politically driven research of new drugs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a Slate article from January 25th comparing the 3 most likely candidates. Gorsuch is the one they liked best:

Quote

Start with Gorsuch, the nominee least likely to spur a Democratic filibuster—not because of his ideology but because of his relatively scant paper trail, his unfailing eloquence, and his universal legal renown. Gorsuch sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in his home state of Colorado, to which he was appointed, without controversy, by George W. Bush. A Harvard Law graduate, a Marshall Scholar, and a Supreme Court clerk (for both Justice Anthony Kennedy and the right-leaning Justice Byron White), Gorsuch’s credentials are impeccable. His writing is superb, incisive, witty, and accessible in the style of Scalia and Justice Elena Kagan. In speeches and oral arguments, he comes across as thoughtful and fair-minded.

Slate is strongly neoliberal leftist (i.e. the kind of people who were pro-Clinton the entire time and made a rather amusing Trump Apocalypse Watch) so this is a rather conciliatory choice on Trump's part. Of course, now that he has been chosen I'm sure they'll publish something explaining why the Democrats should oppose him at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And it does not drive innovation when there is considerable public need. We haven't had a new class of antibiotic (that can deal with multi-drug resistant strains) created in ages. And the lure of a nice long patent has not acted to motivate any pharma companies because there isn't the return there for them. But we could certainly use a new class of antibiotic that is used extremely judiciously to deal with cases of infection with multi-drug resistant bugs.

It really requires a public institution with the mandate, and public (or private philanthropic, like the Gates Foundation) money to find a new class of antibiotic.

Private companies and public researchers are both trying to develop new antibiotics, because as you note there is a big need, and because it's a huge multi-billion dollar market.  Whoever develops a new antibiotic that can deal with drug resistant strains would make many billions.  The problem is that it's just generally very difficult to develop new drugs.  Same thing with developing cures for cancer and HIV.  

Public research and private companies work hand in hand.  There's a place for both.  For example, developing an entirely new class of antibiotics is going to either take a lot of luck through simple trial and error, or a breakthrough in basic research, which often occurs in public research.  Once the breakthrough occurs, it's still going to take a lot of time an money to develop drug candidates to find one that works and is safe.  Lots of startups license their initial patents from universities or research organizations.

50 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, it may stop companies from developing needed drugs because the drug in question may not get a patent and the company may opt for a product that would get a more lucrative patent.

Financial return is certainly a consideration for startups and the investors funding the startups.  If the disease is very rare, there will be much less incentive to develop a drug for that disease.  But if you really develop a new class of antibiotics, there isn't going to be an issue getting a patent.  Getting a patent is generally only difficult when you are making an incremental change or improvement to something that already exists.  Then it boils down to whether that difference was obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh;

Quote

Gorsuch is best known nationally for taking the side of religious organizations that opposed parts of the Affordable Care Act that compelled coverage of contraceptives. In one of those cases, Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, he wrote of the need for U.S. courts to give broad latitude to religious beliefs.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/30/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-donald-trump/http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/30/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-donald-trump/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump has joined Russia, China and radical Islam among threats to Europe and called on Europeans to stick together to avoid domination by three other continental powers

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-eu-tusk-idUSKBN15F1F8?feedType=RSS

Anyone from Europe want to comment on this, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Neil Gorsuch!  

 

Dem meltdown in 5...4...3...2...1

He seems extremely well qualified to me.  His resume is on par with Garland.  It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats in Congress play this.  From what I've read, which hasn't been much to be honest, he seems like the most moderate candidate that Democrats could expect.  If Democrats oppose Gorsuch, there's the risk that Trump nominates someone even more conservative who is pushed through after Senate Republicans nuke the filibuster.  Trump is easily vindictive enough to do that if Gorsuch is blocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

He seems extremely well qualified to me.  His resume is on par with Garland.  It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats in Congress play this.  From what I've read, which hasn't been much to be honest, he seems like the most moderate candidate that Democrats could expect.  If Democrats oppose Gorsuch, there's the risk that Trump nominates someone even more conservative who is pushed through after Senate Republicans nuke the filibuster.  Trump is easily vindictive enough to do that if Gorsuch is blocked.

He's not moderate at all. Think he's a good conservative judge and will make conservatives happy but I absolutely loath the Republicans for stealing the seat from Obama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

He's not moderate at all. Think he's a good conservative judge and will make conservatives happy but I absolutely loath the Republicans for stealing the seat from Obama. 

I agree that what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong.  Unfortunately, Democrats are over the barrel here and have little actual power.  I think Republicans would be willing to nuke the filibuster in exchange for nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

I read a couple articles, like the one on CNN stating that Democrats might be OK with Gorsuch, that suggested that Gorsuch may be the most moderate of the candidates Trump is considering.  Yeah, he's a conservative, but is he the best candidate that we are going to get from Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-eu-tusk-idUSKBN15F1F8?feedType=RSS

Anyone from Europe want to comment on this, please?

Trump has broken from every previous US administration by appearing hostile to the EU. It was surreal hearing his potential nominee for ambassador to the EU (Ted Malloch) say he hoped the EU collapsed like the USSR. Bannon favours Le Pen, and Farage has been reporting that Trump hates the EU more than he does, so, Tusk has a point. And if there is a deal with Putin ... 

Still, I'm not sure what the US can really do to break up the EU and I still think there is a chance the US military/diplomatic establishment will cajole Trump back into conformity with their wishes. We still don't really know his plans wrt Russia/Nato. And the weak state of the EU is ultimately the EU's fault, and especially that of its inept, witless leader, Merkel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Trump has broken from every previous US administration by appearing hostile to the EU. It was surreal hearing his potential nominee for ambassador to the EU (Ted Malloch) say he hoped the EU collapsed like the USSR. Bannon favours Le Pen, and Farage has been reporting that Trump hates the EU more he does, so, Tusk has a point. And if there is a deal with Putin ... 

Still, I'm not sure what the US can really do to break up the EU and I still think there is chance the US military/diplomatic establishment will cajole Trump back into conformity with their wishes. We still don't really know his plans wrt Russia/Nato. And the weak state of the EU is ultimately the EU's fault, and especially that of its inept, witless leader, Merkel.

Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I agree that what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong.  Unfortunately, Democrats are over the barrel here and have little actual power.  I think Republicans would be willing to nuke the filibuster in exchange for nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

I read a couple articles, like the one on CNN stating that Democrats might be OK with Gorsuch, that suggested that Gorsuch may be the most moderate of the candidates Trump is considering.  Yeah, he's a conservative, but is he the best candidate that we are going to get from Trump?

Democrats will wring their hands and moan about how ultra right wing Gorsuch is but they'll confirm him.  Their best play is prevent Republicans from nuking the filibuster and hope they retake the Senate in 2018.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Democrats will wring their hands and moan about how ultra right wing Gorsuch is but they'll confirm him.  Their best play is prevent Republicans from nuking the filibuster and hope they retake the Senate in 2018.  

yeah.  remember also, a lot of the claims from democrats was not just that what the senate was doing was wrong, but that it was in violation of their constitutional duty, and they were quick to say so, and to put forth possible ways in which the GOP might eb legally compelled to hold a hearing.  there was plenty of that type of discussion here as well.

Seems like there is likely a lot of pretty damaging material out there if you happen to be a democrat who made that argument, and now are doing the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mudguard said:

I'm just pointing out that there would likely be some severe unintended consequences of shortening patent term for pharma, biotech, and medical device companies. It's already relatively difficult for most health care startups to raise money from investors, who are typically venture capitalist firms or the VC arm of a large corporation.  It often takes 10+ years  and tens of millions to over 100 million for a startup to develop a drug or medical device and bring it to market, and then there's always the risk that the product fails in clinical trials.

You know it's not like healthcare companies are the only types of companies that have invest in capital and take some risk. All businesses have to do that. Also, again, there is some evidence out there that what really happens is that: Its dying companies that accumulate patents and then use them to prevent innovation from competitors. I'm pretty sure TI did this for awhile.

And lets remember what the definition of rents are. It's more payment than what is necessary to bring a factor of production into use. Now surely, there would still be big profits to be made for a company that would be first to deliver a new drug? Maybe not the kinds of returns that pharma is used to, but still substantial enough for innovation.

 

Just now, Mudguard said:

 Compare that to software startups like Facebook, instagram, whatsapp, etc., where it's possible to achieve massive returns in a relatively short period of time.  As you can imagine, investing in pharma, biotech, and medical device startups is less attractive for many investors.  Doesn't seem fair to me or a good idea to make pharma patent terms shorter than software patents.

Then maybe we should shorten patents for software companies too. You, I have to look this up, but if I recall correctly software patents didn't actually become a thing until the mid or late 1990s. There was was a case out there that I think allowed it. Now it seems to me, there was pretty robust growth in software before that case.

Oh yeah, I think I remember it. It was called In Re Alappat

Just now, Mudguard said:

Patents are a critical asset for a startup trying to raise capital.  For pharmaceuticals, patents are critical because it is generally trivial to copy and manufacture the drug.  If you weaken patent rights, you are making an already challenging situation even more difficult.  It will be even less attractive for investors to invest in the medical field, and without this investment, there are no startups.  

Are they? I'm not really sure there is a robust empirical case for patents in promoting technological innovation. And why isn't the potential profits from being the first to deliver a new drug not sufficient? What you are basically asserting here is that there isn't sufficient returns without patents or strong patent protecton. That maybe true for some drugs. But, surely that isn't true for drugs that people would find truly useful.

Just now, Mudguard said:

Sure, startups have to worry about other peoples' patents, at least until they expire.  But that's a fair exchange for the ability to get your own patents and to encourage competitors to disclose what they are doing.  Trolls actually tend to target wealthy companies with deep pockets, but some trolls are more indiscriminate and just hope to settle with as many people as possible.

Is it a fair exchange? Why? If you're a startup it would seem you would have to worry a lot about some big company crushing you with their patent.

Also trolls seem to leach off more productive companies, rather developing their own stuff. That is a waste.

Just now, Mudguard said:

Sure, you can try changing the public research infrastructure, but that's a massive undertaking, and it's not clear to me how you would do it in a way that works better than what we have now.  Nationalizing the medical R&D industry doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me.

And I'm not suggesting we completely nationalize all R & D. Private companies should be expected to invest in R & D ,if they want the profits.And I don't know why it's a "massive undertaking". Simply give them more resources.

Just now, Swordfish said:

yeah.  It's surprising to me that people are advocating this now, of all times.

Do we really want Trump anywhere near the purse strings that dictate what kind of drugs get researched?  That's crazy to me.

Well fuck, then in that case let's get rid of the CDC, NASA, the EPA, and any other government that conducts research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...