Anyway, had to throw this out for discussion, thanks for the feedback here!

So, I see way more than just synergies. “You’re not paranoid, if they reall are out to get you. . . .” Heh!]

Namaste

Byrne was apparently former director of public affairs for Monsanto. First Monsanto, now AZ, imagine that…Hmmm. A very specialized area of “expertise”, I’m sure.

Where do we suppose pharma stands on the topic of RFID chip implants, GMOs, and the food supply? Big Food and Big Pharma. Think of all the synergistic possibilities.

The three-judge panel concluded the Cipro OS ruling with these words: “. . .we believe there are compelling reasons to revisit Tamoxifen with the benefit of the full Court’s consideration of the difficult questions at issue and the important interests at stake. . . .”

That’s judicial pig-latin for “we think the Tamoxifen reverse patent payment case was wrongly decided (in fact, we think it was based on a misunderstanding of how Hatch-Waxman works), but we don’t have the authority to overrule it, as a three judge panel. . . .”

You may safely bet that the full en banc court will now very shortly be asked to take up the issue of whether Tamoxifen was decided in error — an error of law (and thus always amenable to later reversal) — on rehearing.

This is Act II, of a three Act play.

Namaste

No surprise here, but it was yet another example of torturing the clear language of the contract, in an ultimately vain attempt to avoid paying a fiar fee for the intellectual property rights to the drug.

All tangled up in blue. . . .

Namaste

Confidential N.B.: Apparently, some of my blog’s posts were captured by the V-fluence data-miners, as well.

Gee — Really? I’m flattered. I think.

This way companies might have more money to spend on research, development, production and S/H….i.e. more resources spent on producing and distributing (where applicable) a high quality product. Unfortunately, it would leave less money for the attorneys and lobbists.

The new HCR bill includes the creation of an FDA framework for the FDA approval of biosimilars. Does anyone know if these types of legal loopholes still exist with regard to biosimlars?

V-fluence President Jay Byrne accuses a mental health blogger of hacking, see the story on Jim Edwards site along with my own!

http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2010/04/jim-edwards-astrazenecas-man-behind.html

One simple click on the link and I could read the document in question, embarrassing for Byrne, who was hired by AstraZeneca to monitor sites discussing Seroquel. I found my blog in the list, as well as PharmaGossip’s, who has also written about this story.

Typically, it seems like the “delay” will only extend to the point at which the patent expires. In essence, any further delay would give the FTC further reason to challenge the settlement and payments because at that point you are effectively creating an “absolute” monopoly since you could then pay your competition to stay out of the market. This is outlawed in far too many layers to even try to discuss here.

But I think the point here is more that the brand manufacuter has been able to choose to pay a percentage of the profits of the product to retain, in effect, a monopoly on the market even in the face of a patent challenge that “prima facia” appears to be a valid challenge or in other words, the “generic” player has some level of expectation that the patent is either not violated or is unenforceable. Otherwise, why would the brand manufacturer consider such a policy?