Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Google's reply? (Score 1) 106

A search engine could provide links to a news item without showing any of the content. Of course, that will heavily devalue the news item in question, but if the EU insists on trying to destroy any notion of fair use, there will be inevitable casualties.

Maybe Google could just pay for the rights to access AP, Reuters and the other news wires, and then just say "Fuck it" to the news publishers, much of their content coming from exactly the same sources.

Comment Re: Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 2) 295

Insulin is harder to fuck up than epinephrine, and if you do fuck it up the symptoms are easier to correct. Epinephrine, by the way, is the hormone secreted by the glands that sit atop your kidneys; most people know it as adrenaline after the name brand of the first synthetic version of it. Also, if you inject a dose of epinephrine standard for prophylaxis treatment into a vein, it'll cause a hypertensive surge that will kill you fairly quickly.

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 2) 295

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the real issue here, the EpiPen problem (1) has nothing to do with drug patents, and (2) has relatively little to do with patent protection in general.

IIRC doesn't the patent in this case apply specifically to the mechanism? And yes, epinephrine, for those who don't know, is commonly called adrenaline, which is the name brand of synthetic (but is chemically identical to the endogenous source, and thus no different from it) epinephrine.

And indeed, in many cases when there's a drug monopoly, it doesn't involve a patent. Because I have stage 4 CKD, I have problems with gout. The only medication that effectively treats it in my case is a drug called colchicine. That particular drug has been in use for a few centuries now, but a company presently has market exclusivity. Why? Well, when the Food and Drug Act was passed in 1934, any drug made from that point forward had have its efficacy proven before it could be prescribed, however old medications were "grandfathered in" until a few decades ago (I don't remember the exact year) when the FDA said they needed to pass scientific scrutiny, go through clinical trials, etc, to have their efficacy empirically proven. Colchicine was one of these drugs, and before this happened it was about 10 cents a pill, until the company that put it through its paces was granted market exclusivity as part of their efforts to prove that it works. They then trademarked it under the name Colcrys and raised the price to about $6 per pill.

And again, there is no intellectual property involved here, just the FDA granting market exclusivity. And to a point, I agree with this; they put in the effort to make sure that a drug that's actually by all definitions of the word toxic (it comes from a highly toxic plant) actually works and won't kill you, which isn't a cheap thing to do, they should be able to see a return on investment. But allowing them to raise the price of a drug that is super cheap to produce to a price that's just flat out extortion is ridiculous.

About the only rationale I can figure for avoiding the syringe issue is people's fear of needles

Actually believe it or not I'm less scared of a syringe than an autoinjector. Why? Because in the Army we were issued an autoinjector in case of exposure to some kind of gas (I don't remember which one) which you were supposed to inject into the muscle in your butt cheek. The scary part was how I saw one of these stick right through a 2x4 piece of wood. Imagine if you accidentally stuck your hip bone or your hand...oww...I'll stick with the syringe, thanks.

Comment Re:The whole idea is stupid (Score 1) 169

I'm actually not sure about this. There seem to be a lot of people who are more than happy to post about their crimes and questionable affiliations on their social media accounts, even when they should be pretty sure the police will be looking for them. It certainly won't catch sophisticated terrorists, but it seems like it would probably catch a lot of problem cases since a high percentage of problem cases really are total idiots.

That doesn't make it any less horrifying. Remember back when employers were demanding that people hand over their facebook credentials? Good times.

Comment Re:Not possible (Score 1) 52

Who said it had to be? This issue was about whether or not Verizon had done enough to allow the case to go forward into further discovery, not to prove anyone's guilt or settle the matter. Basically, they're just answering the question of, "is there enough here for a case?" By all accounts, there is. That doesn't mean there's enough to make a final ruling or prove anything conclusively yet. That'll come after the discovery process, which is what they're getting set to start, it sounds like.

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 5, Insightful) 295

Your resident crazy libertarian here:

Indeed there doesn't seem to be any good reason to prevent importing anything from international editions of books (save money for college students) to pharmaceuticals. There may be some merit to that argument for places like Mexico where quality controls are quite poor, however that should be a judgement call left up to the consumer. Likewise, I think the idea of tariffs, embargos, and other forms of mercantilism ultimately cost a domestic economy much more than they supposedly preserve.

Nevertheless, I don't think that's quite the root of the problem. This isn't, by any definition whatsoever, a free market. This is in fact a government granted monopoly. You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases. That said, I don't quite understand why we give i.e. patent holders, copyright holders, etc free reign on how, when, where, and how much they can charge for anything with the sky being the limit. There probably should be some system in place whereby if they opt for government protection, then they must follow certain pricing and trade rules in order to keep that protection.

Comment Re:Not possible (Score 4, Informative) 52

WTF does "direct detection" even fucking mean?

Having read most of the ruling, it apparently means, "We connected directly to the IP address and received our copyrighted material from them", as opposed to, "We took it on faith that any IP address listed by the BitTorrent tracker is serving up our copyrighted material." The terminology comes from a 2008 University of Washington paper that discussed the fact that indirect identification (i.e. relying on the tracker), which was what was primarily in use at the time, was woefully insufficient.

From what I can gather, the ruling basically says that the case can move forward. It doesn't assign guilt, it doesn't say that an IP address = a particular person, and it doesn't deny the possibility that there are ways to spoof IP addresses. It simply says that Verizon has provided enough evidence for the case to move forward with further discovery that would help them to uncover those facts, should any of them be at play.

IANAL, so I may be misreading things, but that's roughly what I got out of what I read.

Slashdot Top Deals