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).

He should be stripped of his land and titles.

Also, SCOTUS likely won't grant cert if most believe the en banc ruling should stand. Perhaps restate further by saying, "I hope that SCOTUS doesn't touch it!"

Ahh . . . you're assuming that you require verification. You assume a reliable information transmission. You can't use quantum entanglement to transmit anything of relevance FTL, but you can use it to transmit a known piece of information FTL. The point being that the receiver has to know what to look for and when and where to look for it.

In addition, in case this point didn't get through from your post, this is an area of direct disagreement. Empirically proven disagreement, I might add.

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.

After reading through the thread, it seems like people have missed (what seems to me as) the big problem with umbilical cord cells--demand. While there is a demand for treatment using these cells for CHILDHOOD diseases, there is little demand for treatment for anything else. That's because we only started banking very recently and we are only banking a small percentage of cells. If it was STANDARD procedure (and free to the baby/parents) to bank these cells, we'd be setting ourselves up for a strong need for research into applications. However, we're not. Only those with the means and the desire bank their child's cells. So where will the research go? To satisfy the demand of the small percentage, or to satisfy the demand of the large percentage. My money will be on reprogrammed somatic cells. Especially because we're not looking to cure Parkinson's, etc. in 50 years (when the first banked babies will develop symptoms). We're looking to cure it ASAP.

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.

There are. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and Merck have worked together to supply ARV meds for several African countries, including Botswana, a country particularly hard hit (with HIV+ rate around 40%).

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.

Though this point will likely get lost in the abyss, most drug companies (if not every one of them) would love to supply drugs to poor countries at low prices. Frankly, most drug companies would be willing to supply poor countries with drugs FOR FREE. The problem is . . . many poor countries also have corrupt leadership. The governments of these poor countries are complicit in diverting donated medicine to other countries, for a profit. So not only would the drug company be donating medicine to a poor country, losing money in the process, but the drugs would then be shipped off to other countries where people would otherwise be paying for them . . . paying the drug company, that is. And the drug companies simply can't take that kind of a loss. Especially when the people in need in the poor country aren't getting any benefit.