No related posts.


The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network
Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere
Why the Answers to Hateful Content Online are Hiding in the Platforms’ Own Rules
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come
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?