RE: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

BTW-

 "... patent protection is necessary  so that drug companies can recoup 
the hefty costs of research."

The argument that CTEA was good because it gives the media content 
providers more money to create more content to provide is the same 
argument the drug companies are making....isn't it interesting how those 
who are given certain protections keep wanting the protection to be ad 
infinitum




"Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/02/2002 11:20 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration


I don't have the code. I'm just paraphrasing what I've read in the paper 
and saw on a couple of national news broadcasts.  The was also some 
political posturing here in Florida (because the cost of meds to the 
elderly) about it.  I will do some 'googling' and see if I can find 
relevant articles.  The drugs companies aren't getting new patents, 
they're getting extensions for 18 months to 3 years on the old ones. 
Congress allowed this extension for some purpose; however, I don't recall 
why.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:57 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration


DO you have the USC code number? If so then the generic companies can 
market the drug under the OLD code or package. That doesn't seem right 
either way. BTW- one who improves upon a patent can get a patent. WHy 
can't the generic companies patent GREEN pills while the patentholder is 
selling while patent medicine.




"Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/02/2002 08:31 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent 
duration


Actually, there is already an extension available to the drug patents. 
That's what the generic companies are shooting at to remove.  A company 
can change the color of a pill or the package and get an extension on the 
patent.  This is what the battle is about.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:01 AM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration


Ditto....did you notice that the drug companies have taken yet another 
swipe at generic drugs....You can bet money that the next thing will be 
the Drug Patent Term Extension Act (DPTEA - pronounded DIP-TEA)....one of 
the other problems with the continual term extensions for copyright is 
that it also encourages the "me too" for other industries....if copyright 
is so awful long and that's a good thing why not increase patent 
protection too....




mickeym <mickeym@mindspring.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/02/2002 09:33 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent 
duration



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64584,00.html

I wasn't aware that there was a bill to shorten the patent duration for 
drugs, but it doesn't surprise me who else (besides the drug co's) would 
be against it. I still can't reconcile the huge difference between 
patent vs copyright duration. I suppose I'm actually okay with the 17 
year patent, in contrast to the 95+ year copyright.

mickeym