No related posts.


Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
Online Harms’ Forgotten Generation: Why the Government Needs to Pay Attention to Protecting Seniors
Culture Off the Table? What the Collapsed Canada-U.S. Trade Talks Reveal About the Carney Government’s Cultural Policy
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?