No related posts.


Still Not a Privacy Law: Bill C-25’s Political Party Privacy Provisions Fall Short Again
Could Bill C-22 Make Canadians Less Safe? The Systemic Vulnerability Gap in Canada’s New Surveillance Law
Why the Verdict on Social Media Defective Design Harming Children Gets the Instinct Right But the Law Wrong
Scoping in the Tech Giants: Bill C-22’s International Production Order and the Shift to a Less Privacy-Protective Cross-Border Disclosure System
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 263: The Lawful Access Act Roundtable With David Fraser and Robert Diab
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
So, repeal C-22
If the drug companies can renege, then so can the goodies that were given to them be taken away.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Why aren’t there such things as charitable venture capital orgs? After-all many charities (eg JDRC) contribute to for-profit orgs. It seems to me that charitable donations would go much further if the beneficiaries of donations (R&D orgs) had to contribute returns back to charities. The role of charities like JDRC then would be to encourage R&D firms to take greater risks.
Hey, Michael! Don’t be so ungrateful or narrow minded. What about the bevy of busy lawyers who make gazillions every year doing “research” on their endless litany of pharmaceutical patent cases in the courts? What about all that useful literature and education directed at the medical profession, so that they are better informed about what pills their patients should pop? That takes a lot of “research and development”. And what about all the consumer focus group “research†that goes into those cute Cialis TV commercials?