Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one being the development of the second nerdiest board on infirm.

Second only to Greedy Clerks.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Is it a basic premise of your argument that drug companies make "too much" profit?

Hank and Club are the one making the argument that by regulating drug prices either directly or indirectly we will reduce incentives for R&D, and that's a bad thing.

I'm questioning not whether it will reduce R&D--it will, ceteris paribus--but whether that's a bad thing. Chinaski's dad and my mom aside.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If the policy no longer works or impedes trade and invention, Congress changes the patent laws (in theory; modern lobbying has made this all but impossible).

Well, Congress has done remarkably well in extending copyright protection.

Thanks, Walt:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Second only to Greedy Clerks.

i was thinking Canada, but that's a cultural thing.

edit: what is wierdest is that they give each other substantive advice on handling legal issues-HELLO? possibly fucking your client by giving advice to the lawyer for competitor, and why take advice from some nameless numbskull?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
HELLO? possibly fucking your client by giving advice to the lawyer for competitor,

you mean, the dissenting judge?

I think our timmy board might have them all beat.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
. . . it will, ceteris paribus . . .

If you can't have a decent conversation without calling me vile names like that, screw it.

(Are you then saying that we've taken medicine to a too-highly developed level, and that we are spending too much on costly things that "should" be left to run their course? That we shouldn't be developing $2000/day AIDS drugs? That's the only practical application I can see when you say that maybe R&D has run amok.)

(Well, not counting shit like Viagra, for which no self-respecting insurer should ever fork out dough.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Atticus -- it is too a Constitutional right, implemented by statute.

You're saying some court has held that Article I, Section 8 does not confer a power on Congress, but rather a mandatory duty to protect intellectual property? That Article I confers individual rights? You may be right, but if so, I'm surprised.

Maybe a court has said this, but if so they're insane. IP was a matter of common law; by its language Article I vests supremacy on the issue in Congress rather than the states and does not confer substantive rights in individuals to compel Congress to have any particular Enumerated Power legislation enacted. Does Congress have a mandatory duty "To borrow money on the credit of the United States"? "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises"? "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court"?

Patent and copyright law seems to me to be an area of federal law created by the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right. Did the SCOTUS say so in the challenge to the extension of copyrights act? If so, I think they're dead and dangerously wrong.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Did the SCOTUS say so in the challenge to the extension of copyrights act? If so, I think they're dead and dangerously wrong.

No, to the contrary it held that Congress basically had unfettered discretion in setting the duration of copyrights.

But I think the timmy dispute is this. SAM means to say that IP rights come from the constitutional authority to establish patents. You say it comes from the commerce clause. SAM's right--it's a separate clause. But so what.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You're saying some court has held that Article I, Section 8 does not confer a power on Congress, but rather a mandatory duty to protect intellectual property? That Article I confers individual rights? You may be right, but if so, I'm surprised.

You do understand he's referring to the more broad protection of property rights? And you're just quibbling that the specific direction re: trademark is not so broad?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But I think the timmy dispute is this. SAM means to say that IP rights come from the constitutional authority to establish patents. You say it comes from the commerce clause. SAM's right--it's a separate clause. But so what.

No need to try to make me look stupid --- I can do that by myself. I know it's in a separate clause, and said so. My reference to the Commerce Clause was that it has the same effect --- it confers a power on Congress to occupy a field (where it chooses) and avoid a multistate fiasco, not confers a right on an individual. I never said Congress had the power to regulate patents solely b/c of the Commerce Clause, although I think Congress would now have a basis to do so, at least after 1940-whatever and the growth of CC jurisprudence.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You do understand he's referring to the more broad protection of property rights? And you're just quibbling that the specific direction re: trademark is not so broad?

Well, if it's not a substantive right conferred by Art. I, sec. 8, aren't we then talking about whether Congress, by shortening the period of protection, is violating the Takings Clause?

I don't have the time to have another Takings Clause argument on this board, but that seems wrong to me. The right originated in legislation, not the Constitution or the CL.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, if it's not a substantive right conferred by Art. I, sec. 8, aren't we then talking about whether Congress, by shortening the period of protection, is violating the Takings Clause?

I don't have the time to have another Takings Clause argument on this board, but that seems wrong to me. The right originated in legislation, not the Constitution or the CL.

Agreed. Except if Congress were to reduce the protection for patents already granted, in which case there'd be an arguable takings point.

And sorry for miscontruing your early arg. re commerce clause. I was too lazy to scroll back to confirm what you had said.

But what is this board if not an opportunity to try to make each other look like idiots?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM wants to extend something similar to the whole country. I was making a parellel argument using the cutoffs as an example of what would occur to most of us. Agian, I do not have much problem with providing an extended safety net. I have a problem with screwing things up for the vast majority of the country.

Did you even read her post? What Oregon was doing affected only people who did not have coverage through their (or their spouse's or parent's) employer -- i.e., people who currently qualify for Medicaid, and people who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but nevertheless do not have group insurance. While this is quite a large number of people, it is not the "vast majority" of the country.

I suppose that such a system could provide an incentive for employers to eliminate coverage for employees. However, that ought to result either in higher regular wages for the employees (or better other types of benefits) or lower prices for whatever the employer produces.

Sorry if this repeats what someone says; it bugged me too much to obey the "read THEN post" rule.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Patent and copyright law seems to me to be an area of federal law created by the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right. Did the SCOTUS say so in the challenge to the extension of copyrights act? If so, I think they're dead and dangerously wrong.

No. I think we were using the terms differently.

S_A_M

[::Knitting furiously::]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, if it's not a substantive right conferred by Art. I, sec. 8, aren't we then talking about whether Congress, by shortening the period of protection, is violating the Takings Clause?

My understanding has always been that the property right is protected in principle, and then the period of protection is the mandated method for determining whether it's a taking or an allowable reg.