Carolyn Y. Johnson, Washington Post; Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention
"At [Louisiana’s health secretary Rebekah] Gee’s urging, Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University and a former Food and Drug Administration deputy commissioner, convened a meeting of health-policy specialists and economists. They advised that the state ask the federal government to intervene in a two-pronged approach: Gee should first ask the government to negotiate with a drug company and license a medication, in line with a recent recommendation by a committee from the National Academies.
At the same time, they advised Gee to pursue a harder-edged tactic, in case the voluntary approach did not work: Gee should ask the secretary of health and human services to invoke a century-old law that allows the government to use patents at a reasonable cost. The panel recommended a price as low as $1,000 per patient.
The law was used routinely in the 1950s and 1960s to make medicines available at lower prices. It was considered but not used during the anthrax attacks in 2001. It has been used by more than 10 government agencies or departments to lower the prices for patented inventions, including night-vision goggles for the Defense Department.
“The drug has been out for years, and we’re failing to provide it to the majority of people who have this infection,” Gee said. “We’re failing at our mission to improve the public health, and so just doing what we’re doing is not an option and we have to do better.”"
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Monday, July 3, 2017
Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found; New York Times, July 3, 2017
Michael Paulson and David Gelles, New York Times; Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies; Bloomberg, June 30, 2017
Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg; ‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
The Supreme Court ruled that a current standard, known as the “promise doctrine,” goes too far, because it allows for patents to be invalidated if an invention doesn’t do any of the things it promised."
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017
Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law; Forbes, June 26, 2017
Art Neill, Forbes; Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
Friday, June 30, 2017
Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 30, 2017
Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
A federal judge based in Pittsburgh this week ordered Stephen Miranda, a former employee in Harsco Corp.’s Sarver office, to remain on administrative leave from Phoenix Services, the Chester County company Mr. Miranda went to work for after leaving Harsco in April."
Thursday, June 29, 2017
One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Director's Forum Blog, June 29, 2017
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)