Yeah, exactly. The linked article quotes parts of the suit that specifically say "nicotine salts" which I think is suggestive that this may be a big part of the case.
I see where you're coming from now. ABX (antibiotics) are a bit unique. New ABX are sparingly profitable because they are usually incremental developments instead of new classes of compounds. A new class would be lucrative. I see this as a reflection that ABX dev is a ridiculously hard problem with many failures. There are many working in this area, but not much to show yet.
Public funds are used up to proof of concept and sometimes early tox/CMC (often through a CRO), but the bulk of the funding for trials comes from industry.
UPenn and Novartis brought Kymriah to market and Kite brought Yescarta to market. Universities can be great for discovery and sponsored research, but they are not leading the work needed to get to market and they are certainly not funding it. Universities efforts are the visible tip of the iceberg, pharma efforts are the bulk under the surface.
I’m not in IT tech, last job search a couple years ago took about a year and I’m starting another that’ll likely take as long. It’s just fantastic to me that multiple people could simultaneously find employment on short notice. It’s a world I haven’t experienced and am frankly envious of.
> If they don't, you have a job you otherwise wouldn't have had.
No, you have a job for as long as you're able to keep your lie secret. Once the lie comes out, even if it's X years down the road, you're terminated for cause, and if a prospective new employer calls they will be told you are "ineligible to be rehired." There are possible legal consequences as well.
GP, do not lie. In the long run, the world works out to be pretty fair, and liars are revealed for what they are.
> It also depends of your tolerance of rednecks, prudes, puritans, and ignorant people (which exist everywhere in the world, but have particularly large concentrations there).
FYI, using "redneck" as a pejorative, as in this context, can be interpreted as pretty offensive, and maybe this is unintentional. I for one consider it offensive.
> > > They timed production to maximize federal tax credits for US consumers.
This is what is confusing me: if the credits are timed to domestic sales (so international sales don’t affect the timing of the tax credit phase out) what does this have to do with production?
Can you quote the text here? For the life of me I can’t find the section you’re referencing. I’ve heard the “timing production to match tax credit” thing before and it doesn’t make sense to me, hence why I’m trying to track down the primary source.
I wasn’t intending to advance an argument, merely present that as a biotech entrepreneur in the process of forming a new company I for one like many of the changes in this proposal. I completely get why software people take umbrage with patents, but wanted to politely put forward that it isn’t a universal feeling.
One biotech person's perspective is that these are changes in the right direction. Things were certainly not perfect in the pre-AIA era, but post-AIA and recent court decisions have had many negative impacts on our industry, particularly diagnostics and particularly new ventures. The uncertainty associated with an “issued” patent has decimated their value, to the loss of innovation in our industry.