Thursday, November 30, 2006


Intellectual Property Rights

A letter to the editor in this morning’s paper finally jogged me to write about something that has been on my mind for some time. The writer takes issue with an article by David Eun in last Sunday’s paper about Google. (In the interest of full disclosure, I must state that Google supports this blog and charges me nothing for using it.) The writer complains that Google has “copied entire libraries of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holders.” The writer concedes that although Google will take down material if the copyright holder demands it, merely displaying the material for public view without first obtaining a license to do so constitutes violation of copyright law.

My reaction is like that of a character in a Dickens novel: “The law is a ass.” Patents and copyrights were originally intended to stimulate invention and creation of literature by guaranteeing the inventor or writer a stream of income from his or her creations. The ultimate benefit was to be the public who would eventually have free and ready access to improvements in technology and new literature and art. But that’s not what patents and copyrights accomplish today. They were originally designed to be effective for a limited term of years, after which the material would be in the public domain. Over time, the laws were amended so that today copyright holders have a perpetual right to block free dissemination of the writing or other material protected. A similar situation holds for patents. A drug company patents a profitable drug. Before the patent runs out, the company makes a small change in the formulation and is able to renew the patent.

I think that our laws regarding patents and copyrights need to be reexamined and changed to promote the public interest in using the material rather than the interest of the creators in a perpetual stream of revenue from their creations. Perhaps instead of granting patents and copyrights, successful inventors and writers and artists should be given prizes for their creations.
Investors watch Eli Lilly shares drop $2.80 post election.

My issue is Zyprexa which is only FDA approved for schizophrenia (.5-1% of pop) and some bipolar (2% pop) and then an even smaller percentage of theses two groups.

So how does Zyprexa get to be the 7th largest drug sale in the world?

Eli Lilly is in deep trouble for using their drug reps to 'encourage' doctors to write zyprexa for non-FDA approved 'off label' uses.

The drug causes increased diabetes risk,and medicare picks up all the expensive fallout.There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.---

Daniel Haszard
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?