Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 325

Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.

And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 325

You're completely missing the point that the drug wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't enough of a revenue stream to justify its R&D. The fact that a drug company can bring in additional revenue through price discrimination in new markets after the R&D is paid for doesn't mean they could sell to everyone for that reduced price from day 1. This is pretty basic math.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 325

In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".

You do realize that really means the U.S. is subsidizing the cost of the drug for those other countries, right? Free riders do not a free lunch make.

Comment Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score 3, Informative) 109

You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess

How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.

which is probably why the Newegg lawyer thought of this brilliant idea

Or maybe it's because every bad patent that's killed through this process is one less bad patent that Newegg may have to pay real money to fight later on.

Comment Re:Bundling is monopolistic (Score 1) 92

So, basically, you have a physical monopoly (the connection coming into your house), that we, the taxpayers subsided, that is now being abused as a content monopoly.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Customers who have both TV and internet service are more likely to watch TV shows via the TV service. Particularly for cable, that comes out of a different bucket of bandwidth than if you watch TV shows via an internet streaming service. In short, cord-cutters will use more--and likely far, far more--internet bandwidth over time than will TV subscribers. Building out infrastructure so that any given subscriber can reliably stream around the clock costs money. Data caps help keep the aggregate demand in balance with the current size of the infrastructure, and surcharges for uncapped data help the infrastructure grow to balance the increased demand.

I don't like it any more than you do, but at bottom there's no such thing as a free lunch. (In the hope of fending off at least a few reflexive downmods, let me be clear that this is a different issue than whether a provider's overall pricing is reasonable or is a monopoly rent -- I'm just discussing the provider's pricing delta (or lack thereof) between a TV subscriber and a cord cutter.)

Comment Re:Show a fucking spine, congress (Score 1) 99

Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.

Hey, great idea -- that Bryan Pagilano dude is TOAST.

Oh, sorry, wrong Congress.

Comment Re:Performance bond (Score 4, Interesting) 44

Given that I (and noone else discussing this here) has actually read the contract, there's no way to say for certain

There's a link to the contract in the summary, reposted here. (That copy doesn't include the appendices, which are here.)

That said, I infer that the contract reduces that performance bond when certain milestones are met.

Correct. The bond reduction schedule is on page 42 of the contract, and references performance benchmarks in Appendix F.

Interestingly, it says the bond was to be reduced to $15 million after meeting the 2011 performance numbers. It lists three more step-downs after that ($10 million, $5 million, and $1 million) that Verizon apparently didn't claim.

So a few things: First, this has been brewing for several years, and probably just boils down to whether Verizon met the 2011 benchmarks, not any of the earlier step-downs. Thus, if they didn't meet the 2011 benchmarks, the bond theoretically would only go back up to the 2010 level, $25 million, not the full $50 million. And the letter only claims 38k addresses in NYC are without service. That's a vanishingly low percentage, and according to Appendix F they only had to provide 66% coverage across NYC in 2011.

Given all that, this default letter strikes me as more of a media ploy than a reasonable expectation of legal recourse.

Comment Re:Ex post facto (Score 1, Troll) 302

Do you understand that the court system is part of the government too?

Probably better than you do. But given that I said "some politicians" and not "the government," I'm not sure of your point.

And it wasn't "the mob" who said Apple did something wrong.

Again, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, "claiming you've done something wrong" is how "some politicians whip up the mob into enough of a frenzy."

With the distractions out of the way, I'd love to hear the rationale for your original--and I think incredibly short-sighted--proposition that, once a political body declares you owe back taxes, "there doesn't need to be a judge or trial to collect those back taxes." First they came for Apple....

Comment Re:backing Hillary? (Score 1) 459

Your shooter analogy fails to meet the most sophomoric application of logic, for he would surely have been tried and convicted.

That's quite a sad statement that you have to fundamentally change my hypothetical in order to mock it.

Just in case you missed it (cough), my entire point is that in some cases, a person who the general populace would think "surely would have been tried and convicted" isn't, because... graft, politics, looking out for your own, and so on. You know, sorta like the story in that article I linked to, which, unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed. Your resort instead to a spew of mindless, ad hominem rhetoric speaks for itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown