User Panel
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:48:26 PM EDT
The Monopolistic Origins of the EpiPen
The autoinjector known as the EpiPen provides injections of epinephrine in cases of serious or even life-threatening allergy attacks. It is derived from another product known as the Mark I NAAK ComboPen, a device created for a monopoly: the U.S. military. The device was designed by Sheldon Kaplan for Survival Technology, Inc., a company with a long history of working with the Pentagon. Once the ComboPen was created, it was sent to the U.S. military to treat soldiers who had been exposed to nerve agents. http://theantimedia.org/epipen-scandal-worse/ |
|
That's a pretty long article to say what anyone with two brain cells could have guessed: government protection is keeping competitors from bringing a competing product to market.
|
|
If that shit is true, I think there need to be some public tar and feathering for those involved. I don't really care for this 2 - 3 years down the road a sentencing is determined.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. The product in question isn't covered by a patent. You'd know this if you read the article. Or just typed the words patent and epi-pen into google. Nope. Straight to "eliminate the entire patent system!" That'll fix it. |
|
|
I love all these big government socialist bitching about a problem that big government policies inherently created.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If that shit is true, I think there need to be some public tar and feathering for those involved. I don't really care for this 2 - 3 years down the road a sentencing is determined. You guys are cutting into Manchins re-election fund. He's going to need every penny of that for his retirement. |
|
Quoted:
I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." |
|
Quoted:
Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. |
|
|
|
Quoted: I love all these big government socialist bitching about a problem that big government policies inherently created. View Quote this. step 1: government creates problems step 2: awareness of govt.-created problem becomes widespread step 3. clamor arises for govt. to "fix" the problem step ALWAYS: govt. cronies profit from the process, and govt. dependency is increased. |
|
Quoted:
The product in question isn't covered by a patent. You'd know this if you read the article. Or just typed the words patent and epi-pen into google. Nope. Straight to "eliminate the entire patent system!" That'll fix it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. The product in question isn't covered by a patent. You'd know this if you read the article. Or just typed the words patent and epi-pen into google. Nope. Straight to "eliminate the entire patent system!" That'll fix it. If you read the article... In 2009, Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, and Mylan sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. over a patent-infringement. At the time, the Israeli company was accused of using Mylan’s design without permission. But in 2012, both parties reached an agreement, and Teva was allowed to seek approval from the FDA for its epinephrine injecting device. Yet they still sued, and got a settlement. Apparently having a patent is not a requirement to sue over one. |
|
Quoted:
That's a pretty long article to say what anyone with two brain cells could have guessed: government protection is keeping competitors from bringing a competing product to market. View Quote The CEO that instituted the price change is the daughter of a senator. Cronyism? I'm shocked you'd even think that. |
|
Quoted:
I know. Clearly he has never had an original idea in his life View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* I know. Clearly he has never had an original idea in his life Not an argument. ETA: and clearly you benefit from the government's pointing of guns at peaceful people.. |
|
Quoted:
Not an argument. ETA: and clearly you benefit from the government's pointing of guns at peaceful people.. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* I know. Clearly he has never had an original idea in his life Not an argument. ETA: and clearly you benefit from the government's pointing of guns at peaceful people.. Abolishing the patent system is ridiculous and isn't really what is to blame here. Granting a patent creates incentive to invent and develop products with an understanding of being able to recoup the research cost of the product. However, one of the biggest issues here is that the FDA is stalling the approval of several other similar products. This delay in approval is artificially holding up the monopoly held by the patent holder, and removing consumers and free market policies from the equation. |
|
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!!
All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. |
|
Quoted:
If you read the article... Yet they still sued, and got a settlement. Apparently having a patent is not a requirement to sue over one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
If you read the article... In 2009, Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, and Mylan sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. over a patent-infringement. At the time, the Israeli company was accused of using Mylan’s design without permission. But in 2012, both parties reached an agreement, and Teva was allowed to seek approval from the FDA for its epinephrine injecting device. Yet they still sued, and got a settlement. Apparently having a patent is not a requirement to sue over one. Yes, it's an off-patent design. It isn't being kept off the market because of a patent issue but rather because of FDA protection of the original company. Related: Patents are really complicated and all kinds of shit can be patented. The basic idea of an ephinephrine auto-injector? Off-patent. Original patent was in 1987. It's possible, however, that Teva was infringing on something about newer versions of the epipen that was still covered by patent (I don't know the particulars of the lawsuit, just speculating). In which case, it still isn't a patent issue. If that is the case, then it was a good suit, imo. Again, speculating. None of which has anything to do with the actual reason why currently developed generics can't be brought to market in this country. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. No, that it is how it works today. First, companies patent everything they can, regardless of whether it works or will ever be produce, simply to block others. They convolute its function, to encompass anything they can to further block others. Then theres the patent vultures, whos only purpose is to buy patents and sue people, they produce nothing with their patents. This is all enforced by the government. Obviously, this is not how patents are supposed to work. |
|
Quoted:
That's a pretty long article to say what anyone with two brain cells could have guessed: government protection is keeping competitors from bringing a competing product to market. View Quote Arfcom has assured me that government sanctioned monopolies are the cornerstone of free-market capitalism. |
|
Quoted:
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!! All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. View Quote Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. |
|
Quoted:
Arfcom has assured me that government sanctioned monopolies are the cornerstone of free-market capitalism. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a pretty long article to say what anyone with two brain cells could have guessed: government protection is keeping competitors from bringing a competing product to market. Arfcom has assured me that government sanctioned monopolies are the cornerstone of free-market capitalism. It's the cornerstone of conservatism. You know, pre-1790s conservatism. |
|
Quoted:
Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* Yepp sound argument you got there. I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." 16er as fuck. |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Abolishing the patent system is ridiculous and isn't really what is to blame here. Granting a patent creates incentive to invent and develop products with an understanding of being able to recoup the research cost of the product. However, one of the biggest issues here is that the FDA is stalling the approval of several other similar products. This delay in approval is artificially holding up the monopoly held by the patent holder, and removing consumers and free market policies from the equation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. *sigh* I know. Clearly he has never had an original idea in his life Not an argument. ETA: and clearly you benefit from the government's pointing of guns at peaceful people.. Abolishing the patent system is ridiculous and isn't really what is to blame here. Granting a patent creates incentive to invent and develop products with an understanding of being able to recoup the research cost of the product. However, one of the biggest issues here is that the FDA is stalling the approval of several other similar products. This delay in approval is artificially holding up the monopoly held by the patent holder, and removing consumers and free market policies from the equation. Patents are a funding model of innovation. A really super duper peaceful one where the government uses force to protect the innovator's bottom line. Christ, are we pro small government in GD or not? It's hard to keep up. Small government unless business profits are on the line, maybe? This shit is confusing. Solving the Epi Pen problem is simple. Let the Chinese sell a general purpose injecting device that functions the same way Add $0.25 worth of Epi. There you go. $25 delivered via Amazon prime. No government force required. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
You really aren't very bright. Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!! All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. You really aren't very bright. Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. When Shkreli was in the news, 87% of the arfcommers in various threads got down on their hand and knees, and prayed to Jesus hoping that Shkreli would bless their wife with a creampie. |
|
Quoted:
When Shkreli was in the news, 87% of the arfcommers in various threads got down on their hand and knees, and prayed to Jesus hoping that Shkreli would bless their wife with a creampie. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!! All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. You really aren't very bright. Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. When Shkreli was in the news, 87% of the arfcommers in various threads got down on their hand and knees, and prayed to Jesus hoping that Shkreli would bless their wife with a creampie. Can you write in English? What are you going on about? |
|
Quoted:
Patents are a funding model of innovation. A really super duper peaceful one where the government uses force to protect the innovator's bottom line. Christ, are we pro small government in GD or not? It's hard to keep up. Small government unless business profits are on the line, maybe? This shit is confusing. Solving the Epi Pen problem is simple. Let the Chinese sell a general purpose injecting device that functions the same way Add $0.25 worth of Epi. There you go. $25 delivered via Amazon prime. No government force required. View Quote When you bring in an outside country you are now talking about globalization and competition with slave labor. Protecting our people from this type of outside competition has been well established back to the time of our founding fathers. It seems you obviously don't understand the system in place and are advocating for economic anarchy which has no precedent in our nation. Most that I see in GD aren't just "small government" but are constitutionalist about the government (limiting the government to it's original functions) which this falls under. The only issue present here is the FDA and the delayed approval process. The FDA was not a clearly established part of our government in the constitution and has no place being used to extend patents beyond their original function. You're anger is being directed at the wrong part of this. |
|
Quoted:
The CEO that instituted the price change is the daughter of a senator. Cronyism? I'm shocked you'd even think that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a pretty long article to say what anyone with two brain cells could have guessed: government protection is keeping competitors from bringing a competing product to market. The CEO that instituted the price change is the daughter of a senator. Cronyism? I'm shocked you'd even think that. Can you imagine of he'd been a Republican? I wonder if Wesley Crusher will even pick this up on her MSNBC show? |
|
Quoted:
Do away with patents. Problem solved. View Quote And then all medical research would grind to a halt. The US is the only country where drug companies can recover their losses from failed investigations or the research required on a fielded drug, everywhere else they're limited to the cost of production or what people can pay for a drug. Kharn |
|
Pointing guns at people over a patent? LOL.
The government does not enforce patents. The patent holder has to sue anyone infringing on it himself, using his lawyer, paid for by him. Patents are the very definition of small government. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. View Quote The US joined the rest of the world by adopting first-to-file a few years ago. It really cut down on patent lawsuit bullshit because either they received your patent application before the other guy or they didn't. No more looking at lab notebooks, drawings, eye witnesses, etc to figure out when the invention occurred. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!! All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. Oh no, I'm plenty bright. In fact, brighter than all the clowns in the last thread shrieking "CAPITALISM" and the typical bullshit line of "they can charge whatever they want" or "if you don't like it start your own company" or the best, "their company their rules". Of course non of these fools bothered to read the articles posted or look into this specific matter beyond "Mylan raises price by 500%". Plenty of clowns where shouting down anyone who was critical of this particular case. I'm not sure if they even bothered to find out that the CEO of the company is a democrat hitlery supporter who is the daughter of a democract senator that played a role in the FDA blocking other companies from being able to bring a comparable product to market. I'm not sure if they bothered to look into her highly questionable MBA she got from a state school in WV while her daddy was governor there, over which the school's president, dean, and another person were forced to resign over. Oh, of course, these are all circumstantial and hearsay, that poor company is just a victim of a big meanie government and isn't engaged in cronyism at all, AT ALL. What I am sure of is how they shouted down people who called this shit out for what it is, because you know, if ANYONE is critical of ANY business for ANY reason, they're a liberal socialist communist and the jackass screaming "CAPITALISM" is the true capitalistic, conservative, patriotic real American. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If that shit is true, I think there need to be some public tar and feathering for those involved. I don't really care for this 2 - 3 years down the road a sentencing is determined. This smacks of a scheme to bilk money from Medicare and insurance companies. |
|
Patents protect an idea, but they do nothing to stifle competing ideas.
I want to build a machine for the wood working industry that is better than all the competing machines. If all those other companies can just copy my system and make their own, I'm keeping my idea to myself. Every day I do so it costs my industry hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess labor costs. Acquiring a patent does nothing to hinder the consumer from choosing a less expensive and less effective solution. My solution is my property, just as my mind is my property. No one is entitled to my property. One of the very few constitutional roles of government is protecting private property. I'm not surprised some people cannot comprehend the difference between private property and government controlled monopolies. |
|
Quoted:
Oh no, I'm plenty bright. In fact, brighter than all the clowns in the last thread shrieking "CAPITALISM" and the typical bullshit line of "they can charge whatever they want" or "if you don't like it start your own company" or the best, "their company their rules". Of course non of these fools bothered to read the articles posted or look into this specific matter beyond "Mylan raises price by 500%". Plenty of clowns where shouting down anyone who was critical of this particular case. I'm not sure if they even bothered to find out that the CEO of the company is a democrat hitlery supporter who is the daughter of a democract senator that played a role in the FDA blocking other companies from being able to bring a comparable product to market. I'm not sure if they bothered to look into her highly questionable MBA she got from a state school in WV while her daddy was governor there, over which the school's president, dean, and another person were forced to resign over. Oh, of course, these are all circumstantial and hearsay, that poor company is just a victim of a big meanie government and isn't engaged in cronyism at all, AT ALL. What I am sure of is how they shouted down people who called this shit out for what it is, because you know, if ANYONE is critical of ANY business for ANY reason, they're a liberal socialist communist and the jackass screaming "CAPITALISM" is the true capitalistic, conservative, patriotic real American. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, no! This is CAPITALISM!! All the corporate cock sucking professors on arfcom said so in the other thread! They're the real captalistic, conservative, patriotic real Americans because they always suck the cock of business and shout down anyone who is critical of any business for any reason. Even when it's blatant cronyism by a piece of shit hitlery supporting and donating democrat who's daddy helped her get a CEO job, questionable MBA, and a monopoly. Almost no one here believes in supporting government created monopolies. If you think that you really don't comprehend what you are reading. Oh no, I'm plenty bright. In fact, brighter than all the clowns in the last thread shrieking "CAPITALISM" and the typical bullshit line of "they can charge whatever they want" or "if you don't like it start your own company" or the best, "their company their rules". Of course non of these fools bothered to read the articles posted or look into this specific matter beyond "Mylan raises price by 500%". Plenty of clowns where shouting down anyone who was critical of this particular case. I'm not sure if they even bothered to find out that the CEO of the company is a democrat hitlery supporter who is the daughter of a democract senator that played a role in the FDA blocking other companies from being able to bring a comparable product to market. I'm not sure if they bothered to look into her highly questionable MBA she got from a state school in WV while her daddy was governor there, over which the school's president, dean, and another person were forced to resign over. Oh, of course, these are all circumstantial and hearsay, that poor company is just a victim of a big meanie government and isn't engaged in cronyism at all, AT ALL. What I am sure of is how they shouted down people who called this shit out for what it is, because you know, if ANYONE is critical of ANY business for ANY reason, they're a liberal socialist communist and the jackass screaming "CAPITALISM" is the true capitalistic, conservative, patriotic real American. Please post quotes to support your BS. It's definitely not in this thread. We all seem to understand the harmful effects of government intervention in the market and how it creates these kinds of issues. |
|
Oh ya.. Atropine and 2-PAM Chloride...
Do they still issue this..? |
|
Quoted:
No, that it is how it works today. First, companies patent everything they can, regardless of whether it works or will ever be produce, simply to block others. They convolute its function, to encompass anything they can to further block others. Then theres the patent vultures, whos only purpose is to buy patents and sue people, they produce nothing with their patents. This is all enforced by the government. Obviously, this is not how patents are supposed to work. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[snip] I don't really think he needs to explain why this is a bad idea. Without the protection of patents, there is very little reason for a person or company to spend time/money on R&D or to ever try to come up with a better/improved/new product. It is already bad enough with the Chinese doing this, no need to completely open up the flood gates. Does not justify using force against another person. Patents are the situation in which people say "I want x, but can't innovate it myself, so I want somebody else to innovate. Government, go ahead and point guns at people in the interest of getting me the widgets I want." Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. No, that it is how it works today. First, companies patent everything they can, regardless of whether it works or will ever be produce, simply to block others. They convolute its function, to encompass anything they can to further block others. Then theres the patent vultures, whos only purpose is to buy patents and sue people, they produce nothing with their patents. This is all enforced by the government. Obviously, this is not how patents are supposed to work. Overly broad patents are a.) hard to get and b.) hard to defend. And from whom did they buy them? In general, if someone is keen on protecting their idea, it is not impossible for even small business owners to get patent protection and then sell the rights to those patents. This is how the vast majority of small business innovation occurs. In addition, the government is not paying for these firms to purchase the patents, nor are they paying for the expensive litigation involved in trying a patent case. This is all protected activity that actually does support innovation. How, you might ask? It forces the other businesses to develop better mousetraps. It's enforced by courts, but only after very expensive litigation processes, which are paid for by private entities. In this particular case, the pernicious party has nothing to do with patenting, but regulatory approval. I have issued patents in my name, and have sold patent rights in the past. Believe me, I know quite well the ins and outs of our current and past patent systems, and this new one we've had the past 3 years is bad news for long term innovation, for sure. A lot of what you describe, however, is actually how business is done and innovation is sparked with even our current patent system. The whole thing breaks down not when we eliminate the competition fostered by the patent system (that would be rather antithetical to the idea behind limited patent protections), but when the government picks winners at the specific exclusion of losers, which it is doing through regulatory force, not through the patent system. To the previous poster's point, patents DRIVE innovation by saying "This person has the rights to do it this way for a limited amount of time, so develop something new and novel that does x better, and you don't have to worry about their patent" and by saying "be ready when this person's patent runs out, and flood the market with products that are cost competitive and better than theirs". Without them, we would have WAY less information sharing, and a hell of a lot of trade secrets as opposed to sharing ideas to make better stuff. |
|
There are 2 alternatives Auvi-Q and Adrenaclick. I don't know what all this nonsense is about.
|
|
Quoted:
The US joined the rest of the world by adopting first-to-file a few years ago. It really cut down on patent lawsuit bullshit because either they received your patent application before the other guy or they didn't. No more looking at lab notebooks, drawings, eye witnesses, etc to figure out when the invention occurred. Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, that's not how that works. Not only that, but patents (it can be argued, first-to-invent patent systems) are specifically protected in the constitution itself. The US joined the rest of the world by adopting first-to-file a few years ago. It really cut down on patent lawsuit bullshit because either they received your patent application before the other guy or they didn't. No more looking at lab notebooks, drawings, eye witnesses, etc to figure out when the invention occurred. Kharn Oh, I'm well aware. I'll be surprised if it doesn't get challenged in court. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.