birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175043758/supreme-court-hears-pay-to-delay-pharmaceutical-case. should be an interesting hearing. as you might guess, i side with the dept of commerce. comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 A simpler solution would be to end US protectionist policy on pharmacueticals, and to allow the duty free importation of prescription drugs from other countries with similar medical standards. If US businesses wish to collude, let them; just let them know that by doing so, they will be forfeiting a massive % of market share, and possibly driving themselves out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 A simpler solution would be to end US protectionist policy on pharmacueticals, and to allow the duty free importation of prescription drugs from other countries with similar medical standards. If US businesses wish to collude, let them; just let them know that by doing so, they will be forfeiting a massive % of market share, and possibly driving themselves out of business. but that's not what's in front of the supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) but that's not what's in front of the supreme court. No, but it's the actual solution to the problem. There is no need to place greater restrictions on markets when freeing markets provides a better solution. Edited March 25, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 No, but it's the actual solution to the problem. There is no need to place greater restrictions on markets when freeing markets provides a better solution. many of these companies are multinationals. your solution doesn't address that. they casn collude globally. and you're talking about an act of congress. this legislation isn't forthcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 many of these companies are multinationals. your solution doesn't address that. they casn collude globally. and you're talking about an act of congress. this legislation isn't forthcoming. Those companies can collude globally if they choose, but to what end? Reverse engineering and distribution of their products by competeing companies makes your point moot. Someone will always rise up and fill the vacuum, and distribute these products because their in money to be made in doing so. As to an act of congress that ins't forthcoming? That's because you're more interested in the outcome of a court case then calling your congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 A simpler solution would be to end US protectionist policy on pharmacueticals, and to allow the duty free importation of prescription drugs from other countries with similar medical standards. If US businesses wish to collude, let them; just let them know that by doing so, they will be forfeiting a massive % of market share, and possibly driving themselves out of business. You mean like Obamacare does? Oh, wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 you all are totally left brained....what if this was about seed for grain? what if monsanta paid off ADM to not use their tech after the patent expried on it. and ADM complied globally, stopping consumers from getting cheaper food. isn't anyone the least bothered by what appears to be a very anti competitive practice that hurts consumers for the benefit of big industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 many of these companies are multinationals. your solution doesn't address that. they casn collude globally. and you're talking about an act of congress. this legislation isn't forthcoming. If they can collude globally, then what exactly do you think will be solved by our Supremes, or an act of our Congress? I sell my patent to a foreign subsidiary, then THEY setlle with the generics, and you and your dopiness is now rendered irrelevant. Nice work Then, instead of the taxes on the profit being paid in this country, they get paid in another country, we lose out on funding your precious teachers...and firemen, don't forget the firemen , and what, exactly, have you accomplished? Sorry but this smacks of the same idiot premise that "Tax The Internet!/Charge Postage for Email!/Charge Sales Tax for Internet Purchases" is based on. Perhaps you should ask Elliot Spitzer how his 2 whole days of "Get the Internet" worked out? Globalization/Internet is here to stay, it has real world causes and effects. This argument is already over, and has been for quite some time. It's just that tools like you and Krugman don't want to admit it. Your tactics of bullying national goverments into stupid policies are irrelevant when we are talking international economics. He wants to talk about this country and that one's monetary policy, as if that has any bearing on a corporation who operates in 30 countries. Case in point: US corpation profits are doing well in every country but...this one. Why? Because they don't have a investment stifiling, uncertainty creating, capital risk in Obamacare. Corporations have no choice but to operate in multiple countries. Diversification is what you learn in Finance 215 class. Therefore, protecting yourself from the idiot decisions of one government or another, by operating in lots of countries, is just showing basic managerial competence. You might as well argue for a living wage in America, and nowhere else....oh...wait....you're the one that makes that idiot argument, based on the same idiot premise, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 If they can collude globally, then what exactly do you think will be solved by our Supremes, or an act of our Congress? I sell my patent to a foreign subsidiary, then THEY setlle with the generics, and you and your dopiness is now rendered irrelevant. Nice work Then, instead of the taxes on the profit being paid in this country, they get paid in another country, we lose out on funding your precious teachers...and firemen, don't forget the firemen , and what, exactly, have you accomplished? Sorry but this smacks of the same idiot premise that "Tax The Internet!/Charge Postage for Email!/Charge Sales Tax for Internet Purchases" is based on. Perhaps you should ask Elliot Spitzer how his 2 whole days of "Get the Internet" worked out? Globalization/Internet is here to stay, it has real world causes and effects. This argument is already over, and has been for quite some time. It's just that tools like you and Krugman don't want to admit it. Your tactics of bullying national goverments into stupid policies are irrelevant when we are talking international economics. He wants to talk about this country and that one's monetary policy, as if that has any bearing on a corporation who operates in 30 countries. Case in point: US corpation profits are doing well in every country but...this one. Why? Because they don't have a investment stifiling, uncertainty creating, capital risk in Obamacare. Corporations have no choice but to operate in multiple countries. Diversification is what you learn in Finance 215 class. Therefore, protecting yourself from the idiot decisions of one government or another, by operating in lots of countries, is just showing basic managerial competence. You might as well argue for a living wage in America, and nowhere else....oh...wait....you're the one that makes that idiot argument, based on the same idiot premise, aren't you? in the case of drugs, we already pay more than just about anywhere else for the same drugs. and the utilization and early availability of generics are among the worst. so, in this case don't think your argument holds up, at all. we can't compete on copyright laws with places like china that treat patent rules with wanton disregard. does that mean everyone should disregard them? isn't that very likely to disincentive invention? there's a difference between patent law and collusion. i think this case illustrates it quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 in the case of drugs, we already pay more than just about anywhere else for the same drugs. and the utilization and early availability of generics are among the worst. so, in this case don't think your argument holds up, at all. we can't compete on copyright laws with places like china that treat patent rules with wanton disregard. does that mean everyone should disregard them? isn't that very likely to disincentive invention? there's a difference between patent law and collusion. i think this case illustrates it quite well. Since I guess you missed it, or more likely chose to ignore it, why did Barry/Obamacare outlaw the re-importation of cheaper drugs from outside the US (which was another thing I meant to mention in reply to "SOB's" question about what I'd do differently)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) 'Pay to Delay' should be reversed. It certainly from my perspective is a collusive arrangement between the two parties. Edited March 25, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Since I guess you missed it, or more likely chose to ignore it, why did Barry/Obamacare outlaw the re-importation of cheaper drugs from outside the US (which was another thing I meant to mention in reply to "SOB's" question about what I'd do differently)? agreed. it shouldn't have. which was likely for the same reasons that the kind of legislation tasker wants won't be considered any time soon. still, its only tangentially relevant to this case. this about much more than drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 'Pay to Delay' should be reversed. It certainly from my perspective is a collusive arrangement between the two parties. Agreed. When's the last time you, me, and birddog all agreed on something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Agreed. When's the last time you, me, and birddog all agreed on something? I tend to agree with what you usually have to say, birddog not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 cool. i really thought this one would be unanimous. there's a clip on the npr report where the drug company's lawyer is defending the practice at a georgetown law school lecture. fairly hysterical laughter can be heard in the background.. wonder if any of the supremes will laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 cool. i really thought this one would be unanimous. That's because you're a chucklehead who can't comprehend that "against over-regulation" doesn't mean "against all regulation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 That's because you're a chucklehead who can't comprehend that "against over-regulation" doesn't mean "against all regulation". unanimously against the drug co and for the dept of commerce...seems like a no brainer. but i doubt it will be unanimous among the supremes. should be interesting. like to see scalia explain a vote for the drug co's here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 unanimously against the drug co and for the dept of commerce...seems like a no brainer. but i doubt it will be unanimous among the supremes. should be interesting. like to see scalia explain a vote for the drug co's here. If the drug makers lose this case, the argument for the dissent I'm sure will still be sound, the issue is the interpretation of the law and the setting of future precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 in the case of drugs, we already pay more than just about anywhere else for the same drugs. and the utilization and early availability of generics are among the worst. so, in this case don't think your argument holds up, at all. we can't compete on copyright laws with places like china that treat patent rules with wanton disregard. does that mean everyone should disregard them? isn't that very likely to disincentive invention? there's a difference between patent law and collusion. i think this case illustrates it quite well. Since I guess you missed it, or more likely chose to ignore it, why did Barry/Obamacare outlaw the re-importation of cheaper drugs from outside the US (which was another thing I meant to mention in reply to "SOB's" question about what I'd do differently)? Dammit Doc! Bah...I had something nicely laid out for birdog to step in. Oh well. birdog if it's "about much more than drugs" then what exactly do you mean? My argument was clearly "this is about you idiots not getting the world we live in today". You responded to my widening the debate....by being specific about drugs. Now, you are saying it's about more than drugs? Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts