|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation.
You really need to separate between patents and copyrights. It's ridiculous to put them both in the same category under "IP" when arguing their specifics, because there is very little crossover (as far as I know).
|
On September 22 2016 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required.
But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been. Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus.
I'm not saying that the world would be better if the Soviet Union was the leading super power or China. I just don't support the USA and some other countries's foreign policy after the cold war. Bombing countries, because you don't like how the country is run, or actively supporting a side in a civil conflict which would benefit you the most. Instead of making blames and taking sides just call upon the UN to do it's job and not just being useless. Start with abiding the laws, establishing peace, and keep it by dealogue, compromises, coming to terms example... If you won't bother, just leave it to the natural selection, because in the end a country's internal affairs is nobody, but it's business...
War wouldn't be beneficial to either China or USA. I don't think any sane country would start a war at this level nowadays, even if the USA didn't have NATO behind it...
|
On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation.
Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments.
Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military...
|
On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military...
Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators.
The copyright system insures you against the risk that you spending time on your project carries. If you're a hobby musician you don't need to care about it because it's just your hobby. For all the musicians that rely on their work, how can we guarantee that they are compensated in a system without copyright protection?
|
On September 22 2016 05:56 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:50 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen.
Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been. Which of those nations were great before NATO came along? Half of those don't even have anything to do with NATO. There will always be small exceptions due to human nature but if you think the war and suffering today is anything like that which would exist were it not for the American superpower, well, I've got a history book to sell you. Afghanistan is not an example that disproves global peace and prosperity, a war between the United States and China would be. Expecting the existence of NATO to end all strife everywhere is an unreasonable benchmark. Hell, two of those, Syria and Libya, are essentially demographic in nature, a population boom a few decades ago created a big generation of bored and apathetic young men which destabilized the region in the Arab Spring. The only way you can link that to NATO is arguing that there was too much peace and prosperity and it created a surplus. I'm not saying that the world would be better if the Soviet Union was the leading super power or China. I just don't support the USA and some other countries's foreign policy after the cold war. Bombing countries, because you don't like how the country is run, or actively supporting a side in a civil conflict which would benefit you the most. Instead of making blames and taking sides just call upon the UN to do it's job and not just being useless. Start with abiding the laws, establishing peace, and keep it by dealogue, compromises, coming to terms example... If you won't bother, just leave it to the natural selection, because in the end a country's internal affairs is nobody, but it's business...
Yeah but to be fair, for the UN to do it's job (which in many cases, would likely be something similar to what you don't like), it would need some teeth - and a lot of countries/people don't want to give the UN teeth.
|
On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators.
Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it.
But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time.
|
God I hate this bitch...
The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent.
Source
|
On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation.
There's some interesting case studies w/r/t to that. For example, winrar is basically free to individual users, but makes money off enterprise licensing which in turn is only a viable business model because it's a widely used format which is because it's free (for most people).
On September 22 2016 06:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators. Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it. But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time.
Some companies also go the trade secret route to protect IP. Like the Coca Cola formula.
|
It's not by choice though, as recipe cannot be trademarked.
|
On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... Show nested quote +The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source
An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed.
And in other news, Trump called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Trump is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not.
|
On September 22 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed. And in other news, Trump called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Trump is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not.
It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit
|
On September 22 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators. Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it. But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time. Some companies also go the trade secret route to protect IP. Like the Coca Cola formula.
Of course Coca Cola's formula itself isn't really that important. There are hundreds of no-name knockoffs that you can find in every single grocery store, and Coca Cola doesn't even taste the same across national borders (Canadians still get sugar in ours, suckers).
Coke runs off of marketing and brand recognition, more than anything.
|
On September 22 2016 06:27 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed. And in other news, Trump called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Trump is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not. It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit
I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again.
Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress.
|
On September 22 2016 06:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 06:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators. Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it. But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time. Some companies also go the trade secret route to protect IP. Like the Coca Cola formula. Of course Coca Cola's formula itself isn't really that important. There are hundreds of no-name knockoffs that you can find in every single grocery store, and Coca Cola doesn't even taste the same across national borders (Canadians still get sugar in ours, suckers). Coke runs off of marketing and brand recognition, more than anything.
Coke is a pretty poor example. I probably should have said something more like some sort of proprietary artificial intelligence or software. 
|
US patent law being shit and patents being conceptually bankrupt are not the same. I would lean on the problem being the former and not the latter. Patents are very important, it's just that many industries have grown faster than the government can keep up with.
|
On September 22 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:27 ragz_gt wrote:On September 22 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed. And in other news, Trump called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Trump is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not. It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again. Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress.
You make it sound as though you don't support it?
|
The car rental giant Enterprise says it has resigned its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), an anti-regulation lobby group that has pushed against climate change legislation, effective immediately. The announcement follows last month’s revelation by the Guardian of the publicly environmentally friendly company’s contributions to the group.
Enterprise is the largest car rental company in the world and owns Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National and Alamo. It has sought recognition for its tree-planting programs, aimed at offsetting carbon emissions, and its increasingly large fleet of clean vehicles.
But association with Alec was too much for many consumers, who told the company on social media and in petitions that they would take their business elsewhere. A petition demanding the company withdraw its support from the lobbyist group had reached 89,000 signatures at the time of writing.
A spokeswoman, Laura Bryant, said the company valued communication with its customers and that “[t]o that end, we have been carefully listening to those customers and partners who have expressed sincere concern about our ALEC membership.
“In fact, after thoughtful consideration, we have decided to resign our membership,” she told the Guardian.
The company’s membership in Alec, which has poured considerable resources into denying and minimizing scientific efforts to quantify climate change, was brought to the Guardian’s attention by the watchdog group the Center for Media and Democracy.
Source
|
On September 22 2016 06:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 06:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:59 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2016 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Also most examples provided in this thread for value creation outside of the IP system aren't particularly innovative. It's questionable whether the umpteenth music remix adds something to the field of music in the same way that an original piece of music does that is being produced by trained musicians etc...
Open source software is highly innovative but also dependent on large corporations that provide the necessary infrastructure and money to keep the eco system afloat. Most open source developers are still employed in the industry. Mere copying provides value, but not innovation. Really depends on what you consider "outside of the IP system", because a huge number of technological advancements in the last half century are from government or university funded research and experiments. Internet was military developed, Google search was part of a Stanford (?) research project, modern travel infrastructure owes a lot to military. Satellite technology was NASA and military... Sure, in that case the resources required for those innovations have been publicly financed, they don't rely on market mechanisms to get their cost back. Some supplements for the arts aside, this is not an option for most private creators. Sure, that's an entirely different argument then. And one I probably requires more facts and numbers than I'm willing to look for right now, nor would I know the conclusion for it. But I was contesting that things outside the IP system aren't innovative, which is very much untrue. There's also been a large number of innovations (software especially) that have come from a kid's concept done up during their highschool/college spare time. Some companies also go the trade secret route to protect IP. Like the Coca Cola formula. Of course Coca Cola's formula itself isn't really that important. There are hundreds of no-name knockoffs that you can find in every single grocery store, and Coca Cola doesn't even taste the same across national borders (Canadians still get sugar in ours, suckers). Coke runs off of marketing and brand recognition, more than anything. Coke is a pretty poor example. I probably should have said something more like some sort of proprietary artificial intelligence or software.
Well, reverse engineering works pretty decently if you really want to figure out an algorithm. Generally, trade secrets are a LOT less safe than if you can patent your invention. Of course, algorithms as such cannot be patented, which is part of the reason that software patents are so stupid.
|
On September 22 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:27 ragz_gt wrote:On September 22 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed. And in other news, Trump called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Trump is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not. It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again. Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress. You make it sound as though you don't support it?
I don't. Which is why I voted for Warren in the Senate and will vote for her again when she is up for re-election.
You make now make your snarky comments about Clinton doing nothing because it is your sole output in this thread.
|
On September 22 2016 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:27 ragz_gt wrote:On September 22 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2016 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:God I hate this bitch... The drug company that makes the EpiPen says it isn't nearly as profitable as many people assume it is.
At least that's the message Mylan NV CEO Heather Bresch will try to deliver to members of Congress today.
Bresch, who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is expected to tell lawmakers that the company earns $100 profit on each two-pack of EpiPen auto-injectors, even though they carry a $600 price tag.
"The misconception about our profits is understandable, and at least partly due to the complex environment in which pharmaceutical prices are determined," Bresch says in prepared testimony. "The pricing of a pharmaceutical product is opaque and frustrating, especially for patients."
Bresch says it costs the company about $69 to make two EpiPens, and after rebates and fees, Mylan receives $274 per EpiPen pack. She says other, unnamed costs absorb an additional $105, leaving $100 in profit for the company.
While the company apparently is looking to use the analysis to downplay its profits, analysts say the margin is still quite high.
Ronny Gal, a pharmaceutical industry analyst at the investment firm Sanford Bernstein, says Bresch's numbers mean Mylan makes a 40 percent profit margin on the device.
The EpiPen is a long, plastic tube that automatically injects a dose of epinephrine — or adrenaline — into a person's thigh to stop an allergic reaction. It's easy to use and portable.
Mylan bought rights to the EpiPen in 2008 and launched an aggressive marketing and awareness campaign. That effort has made the so-called auto-injector a must-have for anyone with a serious allergy — perhaps to bee stings or tree nuts — that may trigger anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction in which the airways swell and close.
The company has come under fire in recent months, however, because it raised the price of the device, which has been available for decades, more than 500 percent. Source An almost 30% margin on a product is pretty great normally. Like amazing. Book stores would dream of that. Also the $105 of magically costs need to be detailed. And in other news, Drumpf called for a nationwide stop and frisk policy, because we need more police departments being sued for racial profiling. Which is fine, since Drumpf is also pretty pro-racial profiling. To bad the courts are not. It's 140% margin, as it's 100 in profit I am assuming that they have +$170 in costs and they are not making shit up. In reality we know its a 140% mark up and they are just scum. Its ok, though, we will yell at them, fine them and no one will be charged or anything will happen. Their stock will soar and people will make millions again. Just like Wells Fargo. Just like everything else. The people who work for these companies can commit no crimes. Ever. They are immune. The only thing that will happen is a stern talking to by congress. You make it sound as though you don't support it? I don't. Which is why I voted for Warren in the Senate and will vote for her again when she is up for re-election. You make now make your snarky comments about Clinton doing nothing because it is your sole output in this thread.
Well I mean at this point, the "I told you so train" is well of the tracks and onto the moon. I hear it rode there on principal
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
