Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Where editorial identifies an issue or risk in an article the relevant passages could be proactively removed, or rewritten internally, to remove the perceived risk, as an alternative to obtaining legal advice on the risks of publication.
[emphasis added by me]
Does this not simply say: "if you decide not to get legal advice on that risky passage, maybe you shouldn't run with it"?
Is that really so chilling?
-
Shock horror! Large media organisation has legal guidelines!
The extracts Cactus Kate has published are utterly unremarkable.
I note that her areas of legal expertise appear to be corporate, tax and trusts.
-
Matthew, I'm not denying Pharmas spend a lot on advertising and marketing. All businesses do. But the PR and lobbying part of that spend is probably quiite small, I'm guessing.
-
These are the same drug companies that spend mere hundreds-of-millions on R&D
Not so. R&D spending last year in the US alone was US$65.2 billion.
R&D spending calculations often don't include patenting costs (add another few billion) and some don't include regulatory costs (which would add several more billion).
I suspect you'll find the amount spent by "evil Big Pharma" on PR and lobbying is miniscule by comparison, though I admit I don't have those figures.
No, I don't think it's the cost of getting drugs to market that's to blame for their expense in the US.
It is a fact that it is enormously expensive to introduce new drugs to market. The US and Europe are the biggest markets, so it would make sense that the pharmaceutical companies would look to recoup most of their costs in those markets.
-
An interesting post, although as I work in the the IP law are I have a different perspective on the "evils" of copyright.
However, a couple of things I had to mention:
It's no accident that pharmaceuticals are more expensive in the US than almost anywhere else.
I agree entirely. It also has nothing to do with copyright law, or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you must blame an IP right on the cost of pharmaceuticals, blame patents. Or better still, blame the enormous costs and vast regulatory framework associated with the development and sale of new drugs.
The last government passed S92A and paid for it, although I doubt that was the only reason for its demise.
I doubt s92A had anything at all to do with the demise of the last government. I'd be surprised if most Labour MPs had even heard of s92A before it became a hot issue earlier this year.
-
I don't think I have ever yelled "focus!" at the television before.
I think I yelled another word. Started with "f" though.
I swear every time there was a lineout the camera would zoom out, just as the jumpers were going up. The director must have thought we needed to know what the fuillback was doing at that critical time.
As for the game, it was alright I suppose. We won; we got in a lot of kicking practice (despite our brief runs being fairly successful); and Dan Carter got to be a "bad boy" for a day. Is he our Christiano Ronaldo now?
The hit by Carter didn't look high at the time. Even on the replay it isn't the worst high tackle you'll ever see, and if Carter's suspended it will be a bit of a joke.
It was a game Wales didn't deserve to win. They tried hard but didn't have the skill or agrression. There were a few times when I thought the floodgates were about to open, so I suppose they did pretty well to hang in to the end.
-
Scott, please present yourself at the nearest Shadow Lodge for a mindwipe and then some baby eating in honour of the late Queen Mother.
All this feasting is bad for the waistline. I barely fit my diabolical robes any more. Can't we just for once have sushi?
-
Ah, the old Freemasonry Judicial Conspiracy Theory.
Theory? You can't work in the legal system in this country unless you're already a member of the Freemason Illuminati New World Order reptilian elite.
Oops, said too much...
-
That really is a shabby editorial. Havoc has done nothing wrong (well, apart from amassing the fines in the first place...). He had a problem and dealt with it within the rules.
The only "wrong" this story potentially highlights is that an articulate person with money to pay a smart lawyer will always have an advantage when it comes to dealing with "The Man". That's not Havoc's fault.
What it highlights is the dreadful state of our legal aid system, and the difficulty people have getting access to legal aid. Ironically the Herald has been crusading for some time against the legal aid system, with a number of recent front-page articles about "rorting" lawyers, "car-boot lawyers" etc.
-
they were only pushed into using that space (the room where they put the T Rex) because there was a Law Society do in the events centre end of the building
That would have been the Law Awards - the Grammys of the legal fraternity.
(They're not run by the Law Society)