This is a good first step. The US *should* be on a first to file system. Venue for patent suits *should* be restricted to venues that make sense (rarely ED TX).
But some provisions go too far. Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable. Also, we need a change to the laws that provide incentive for innovation in regulated industries. Patents are most valuable in the life sciences. We need reform here. We need to better align value with innovation. We've still a long way to go.
In the USA, it is illegal for doctors to get the kinds of kickbacks you described. Of course, just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it doesn't happen . . . but at least it is illegal. And the US DOJ prosecutes the companies giving out these kinds of kickbacks.
Also, there's nothing wrong with being a doctor AND a business-person. If you own a clinic or a piece of machinery in which you invested substantial capital, you should have every right to extract legitimate returns. For example, if you own a CT machine and have it in your office, why in the world would you ever refer your patients out to a private lab to get a CT scan? Frankly, the patients would thank you for the convenience. After all, medicine is, in part, a business.
By the way . . . "Dr. Screw" is hilarious. I'll have to remember that one.
A few points:
1) Doctors (PCPs) do not get "kickbacks" for ordering CT scans or MRIs unless they own the machines. They rarely own the machines.
2) Doctors rarely get "kickbacks" for referring to specialists. They more frequently have DIS-incentives to refer. Writing a referral authorization is a pain in the ass and almost always non-reimbursable.
3) You're clouding the real issue here. TFA described the issue well. My only comment, in addition, is that many doctors are reluctant to accept evidence-based medicine because they don't really understand it. The practice of medicine uses algorithms. Evidence based medicine is a means by which algorithms are created, but few physicians have the statistics background needed to connect the dots. So most physicians just abide by the current guidelines until enough people tell them to change their practices (i.e. the medical society to which they belong changes high systolic blood pressure from >140 to >130).
True. The calculation of 1000 years seems a bit too long. We can't figure out how to shorten it because we don't know how long we're going to be using broadcast signal based communication as opposed to some other more direct means.
Besides . . . attempting to extrapolate with so many unknowns is, at best, an exercise in postulation. At worst, it is dangerously misinforming.
1) No one is following Moore's law. It's a description of what happens.
2) You can, of course, come up with some equation that describes the cost of a set amount of processor power over time.
3) This article and this summary make bad economic assumptions and use faulty logic. I suggest to all reading the comments that it's not worth reading.
That is all.
My wife and I are planning on having another child. This is something I've considered. I haven't made up my mind, but I'm certainly leaning toward not doing it. There is, of course, the desire to spare no expense for your child . . . but I have to be rational. I, at this point, can't see any reason to justify the expense.
This kind of effort doesn't work in less friendly countries, however. Look at what efforts have gone into Nigeria, Namibia, Liberia, etc. Their situations are much more dire, even though they have lower HIV+ rates. The sad fact is that they don't offer hospitality to those with a desire to help.
Bringing this back on topic, however, patents work as they should in the drug world - regulatory approval and high investment risk requires patent-like exclusivity incentives - however, in other fields of technology, patents CAN be counterproductive. Just keep in mind, though, that innovating around existing patents is STILL innovation. Who knows what someone might come up with to get around this Apple patent? Patents provide incentives for the proprietor and for the competitor. Especially if the market goes unsatisfied.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones