Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters)Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters)Posted Jul 5, 2012 20:05 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510)In reply to: Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters) by pr1268 Parent article: Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters)
But their expenses are mainly covered by copyright, because the expensive part is the implementation.
I think the "advances" he's talking about here are the patented inventions, which may be expensive to implement, but probably aren't that expensive to come up with.
That's in contrast to drugs that are cheap to synthesize but cost hundreds of millions to discover and test.
(Log in to post comments)
Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters) Posted Jul 5, 2012 20:26 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] The drug companies need to cover their testing and regulatory compliance costs: that's the principal argument for cutting them some slack that people bring out. There's also their need to scrape together some cash to pay fines and settlements, of course. (Interesting that the Wikipedia article about GSK has recently had the latest $3bn judgement relegated to just another item in a list whereas a New Zealand Ribena advertising scandal, settled for just over $200000, retains its more prominent place...)
Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync (Reuters) Posted Jul 6, 2012 17:41 UTC (Fri) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
|
|||||||||||||