Doc Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 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. It's not totally irrelevant. They both have to do with cheaper generics being kept off the market, which would significantly lower drug costs for the US. You brush it aside with a "it shouldn't have," but it's another in the many failings of Obamacare to effect real cost containment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) It's not totally irrelevant. They both have to do with cheaper generics being kept off the market, which would significantly lower drug costs for the US. You brush it aside with a "it shouldn't have," but it's another in the many failings of Obamacare to effect real cost containment. as chef would say, yes Yes, YES! it was a mistake. probably payback for the drug co's supporting the ACA. if a few repubs supported it and there was more cooperation in congress that might not have been needed. but seriously, the repubs supporting hurting big pharma? dems were probably bought off late int the game but they've been owned for a while. remember the medicare drug civerage legislation? i see this as a litmus test for whether we are truly and completely a corporatocracy....the drug co's win here would confirm it. Edited March 25, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Yeah this, at first view anyway, appears to be classic collusion. Just b/c they do so under the guise of settlement...it is still plain and simple 2 separate/independent economic actors making an agreement that unreasonably restricts trade. Absent the lawsuit nobody would even question this. While the public policy reasons for encouraging settlement agreements are important, they're no where near cutting the mustard when bumping up against very basic antitrust law...competition assumes and demands independent decision making this in inherent in our way and not just culturally it's literally the law here...can't do it... Edited March 25, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 as chef would say, yes Yes, YES! it was a mistake. probably payback for the drug co's supporting the ACA. if a few repubs supported it and there was more cooperation in congress that might not have been needed. but seriously, the repubs supporting hurting big pharma? dems were probably bought off late int the game but they've been owned for a while. remember the medicare drug civerage legislation? i see this as a litmus test for whether we are truly and completely a corporatocracy....the drug co's win here would confirm it. Most of Obamacare is bad legislation borne of corporatocracy. Which is why it's crap and doomed to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Yeah this, at first view anyway, appears to be classic collusion. Just b/c they do so under the guise of settlement...it is still plain and simple 2 separate/independent economic actors making an agreement that unreasonably restricts trade. Absent the lawsuit nobody would even question this. While the public policy reasons for encouraging settlement agreements are important, they're no where near cutting the mustard when bumping up against very basic antitrust law...competition assumes and demands independent decision making this in inherent in our way and not just culturally it's literally the law here...can't do it... well, that's what i thought too, but i'm frequently confused by the law...what could possibly be the arguments against it being collusion? why should it take the supremes to decide this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 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. idk too lazy to look now but here is a link if you want a bunch of the stuff in one shot: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/federal-trade-commission-v-watson-pharmaceuticals-inc/?wpmp_switcher=desktop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 idk too lazy to look now but here is a link if you want a bunch of the stuff in one shot: http://www.scotusblo...witcher=desktop thanks...no wonder i don't understand the law. it appears solvay went into an agreement with 3 different generic companies divying up some production and marketing of the brand name drug among the 3 and paying them 10% of the revenues from the drug for the services in exchange for them not taking on developing the product as a generic.. they argue that this arrangement isn't collusion although the goal was very clear. seems sleazy to me and clearly not in the best interests of competition or of the consumer. mind you, this started in 2003. think of all the bucks paid out by limp consumers unnecessarily over that time. not to mention the bad effects of the "do you know your T level ads"playing incessantly on tv. maybe it's legal. whenever i discuss such issues socially with lawyers, my jaw drops and my head spins. sure doesn't meet the smell test to me. if this is ok, then, it seems to me, that the system is rotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) thanks...no wonder i don't understand the law. it appears solvay went into an agreement with 3 different generic companies divying up some production and marketing of the brand name drug among the 3 and paying them 10% of the revenues from the drug for the services in exchange for them not taking on developing the product as a generic.. they argue that this arrangement isn't collusion although the goal was very clear. seems sleazy to me and clearly not in the best interests of competition or of the consumer. mind you, this started in 2003. think of all the bucks paid out by limp consumers unnecessarily over that time. not to mention the bad effects of the "do you know your T level ads"playing incessantly on tv. maybe it's legal. whenever i discuss such issues socially with lawyers, my jaw drops and my head spins. sure doesn't meet the smell test to me. if this is ok, then, it seems to me, that the system is rotten. can't really get into looking into this one right now for some reason but it looks like they're battling over what standard will be used in the analysis...which as often is the case in the law....will likely make a huge difference....the short of anti-trust is that it's the unreasonable restraint on trade (read into the law) and as such there is a balancing...a weighing of the procompetitive benefits and anticompetitive effects (this is called "the rule of reason")...but some things are so obviously anticompetitive the court refuses to hear evidence supporting the procompetitive effects (this is called "quick look")...you can see why this argument of which of these approaches to use is so contentious...hugely important for the drug company and also a tough burden for the gov't to meet in showing that this is illegal "per se" edit: looks like after just reading the commentary the court is very interested in thinking about what the inquiry will be on full scale rule of reason analysis and how important the strength of the patent claim is to taht inquiry and how insane the litigation can get... Edited March 26, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts