No related posts.


The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information
The Lawful Access Privacy Risks: Unpacking Bill C-22’s Expansive Metadata Retention Requirements
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 261: Ian Goldberg on the Privacy Risks of Age Assurance Technologies
Government Enacts Political Party Anti-Privacy Rules With Bill C-4 Royal Assent Sprint
A Tale of Two Bills: Lawful Access Returns With Changes to Warrantless Access But Dangerous Backdoor Surveillance Risks Remain
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?