TwiceHorn

Many of you are too young to remember, but back when Nocona made real boots.

Not nearly as easily as 30 years ago. I'm not sure I would set hard limits on where my kids could go. But I might apply gentle pressure as my mother did when aggy was on my list: do you really want to deal with being an aggy all your life? No, Mom, you are right thanks for the reminder.

While you could be correct that it is overblown or out of context, numerous articles state that Andy Groff, Kroger's pricing head, confronted with emails, admitted that they raised prices beyond that necessary to pass through cost inflation.

@Bozo_Casanova Your thoughts? From what I can see, Kroger has had consistently lower prices by a little bit, than tt/albertsons.

So, should have known the 88 is a Nazi reference, not birth or graduation year. https://www.facebook.com/mhanna88/videos/ Piece of shit.

Who is this embarrassing motherfucker?

Stupid and inferior.

It looks like what they did is treat an NDA as an act of infringement, which is a thing, like Patent Term Restoration, only available to pharma. And, it's not just Abbott. It's errbody. I am unaware of any pharma the doesn't "game the system." Pharma patentees are somewhat disadvantaged because the FDA approval process could prevent marketing and selling (and profiting and recoupment of costs), until well into the 20 year patent term, depriving pharma of the rights more or less available to everyone else. But the compensations we have in the system, restoration and shit like an NDA is an act of infringement, seem to have gone overboard. Also, the grant of exclusivity by the FDA upon approval, patent or no, seems extravagant. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Exclusivity-and-Generic-Drugs--What-Does-It-Mean-.pdf

Also thought I would look at their European Patent. It appears they only sought patents in US, EU, and JP. One of the biggest knocks on the US system is that you can file endless continuation applications, which are all the same application, but with different claims (sometimes to markedly different subject matter, sometimes not). Regardless, continuations themselves do not extend patent term, they all expire on the same day, 20 years from filing of the first application. In a lot of senses, a "family" of continuation patents can be regarded as one big patent. The EU and most other jurisdictions don't allow that. But Abbott let the first European Patent application, corresponding to the above, die on the vine, and have filed a "divisional." A divisional is allowed when an Office tells you you are claiming more than one invention in an application, that is, you have claims to a composition, a dosage, etc. Each would be regarded as a different invention and you have to file a second, third, etc. to seek the other types of claims/inventions identified. So, shenanigans have ensued. The biggest booger in the US is the Patent Term Restoration act, which treats drugs and devices subject to approval differently than everything else. The maximum attainable term is supposed to be 14 years from approval.

Yeah not sure where I got the "month's supply" re-reading, Just says 85gpb for a vial. Yikes

On a semi related note, I see that RR has tarted up the Defender significantly. That seems like a shame.

I did find what seems to be the basic patent for the composition. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190224220A1/en What's interesting is that that one there was allowed, but instead of letting it grant, they have filed four continuations, none of which have been granted. And each of them has a non-publication request, so are unpublished, meaning the public and competitors can't see what they're doing with the coverage. The earliest filing date of that family is 2017, so all patents would expire in 2037 or thereabout. So this strategery I guess delays grant until something closer to marketing in the US, but has also eaten seven years of term, or half of it. But I guess they're going to get some of that back due to Patent Term Restoration. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/cder-small-business-industry-assistance-sbia/small-business-assistance-frequently-asked-questions-patent-term-restoration-program I saw they charge 85GBP for a vial (a month's supply) in the UK, before discounts etc. Don't see what they charge for the pump.

I'd be interested to see the patent situation here. As you note, C/L is a standard, old treatment, so I'm sure the chemical composition with efficacy patents are long expired. There may be something chemically/pharmacalogically new about this variant, though. That may leave dosage patents and the infusion machine, to the extent there's anything patentable about that. Patents or no, Abbott is going to get 6 years of exclusivity upon approval.

Get a front row bulkhead seat. It's really no worse than any other domestic airline these days.

That's a weird prediction. The new indictment doesn't bring any new charges, it's just tailored to avoid problems with the immunity ruling. If it's not a weird prediction, it's at least one that could have been made when the original indictment was filed.

And I'll submit that it's always been Calvinball. Typically a much more restrained form of the game, but Calvinball nonetheless.

That's not what I said. The AG authorizing statutes are something of a mess, amended multiple times, recodified, etc.. upon which judicial minds may differ. If this issue had been raised by Hunter Biden, I'd still be worried a bit. A note, I have heard others mention that other courts have rejected attacks on the validity of the special counsel appointment. The US's brief doesn't mention any of those as supporting authority. Maybe because district court opinions that have little value, or other courts of appeal, which might also have little value in the 11th. Or maybe because they just agreed that US v. Nixon disposed of the issue. It comes damn close. Also, I'm not sure this specific attack was raised anywhere else. The others tried to argue that a special counsel was not an inferior officer and therefore had to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Very sharp. These guys know what's up. Still, I'm worried about the validity of special counsel appointments. I'd be less so without this SCOTUS, but still worried.

The indictment is 9 pages shorter than the original, so it probably reduces mention of anything that could be considered an official act or core constitutional responsibility. The ABC article does a pretty good summary. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-charged-superseding-indictment-federal-election-subversion/story?id=113193224 Notably: While the original indictment mentions the Justice Department on over 30 occasions, the new indictment makes no mention of the DOJ. More importantly, I think, behind the scenes, the evidence presented to the grand jury to secure the indictment avoided anything (well not anything but more things) that could be considered official acts or core constitutional responsibilities. And, I'm sure this is a different grand jury, so there's no "taint" (or grundle or gooch) of the prior possibly inadmissible evidence.

To the extent that high-standing in a law school class indicates "smarts," sometimes, if not often, it is of something of a savant variety. And, as you note, her lack of trial experience and sort of egghead bent tends to mean she "makes a federal case" out of, well, federal cases.

That's not unreasonable, I don't think, assuming that last is the plumber's negligence. People are just stupid enough to sue a pipe inspector when the inspector finds fucked up pipe.

See, I don't think it requires great brilliance to draft with clarity. I write and screw around with patent claims on a daily basis. Verbal descriptions of physical objects and processes that require some degree of clarity. I'm not some genius drafter, and even if I am, a plethora of chuckleheads write patent claims that get the job done every day.

That's a fair point. But as a lawyer that deals with relatively modern statutes on the reg, TItles 15, 17, and 35, they are much better drafted than older things. One of mulitple flaws of Congress, both todays and those of yesteryear, is that they seem to refuse to a) draft with clarity and b) fix clarity issues when the courts find them. So weirdly worded statutes grind my gears. And these are pretty oddly worded. And, when you have that, regardless of the political orientation of the interpreting court, you can get bad results. And, it's not devil's advocacy. It's acknowledgement that there can be an actual dispute here, even before you get to what you think the court will do with that dispute. The best thing in the government's favor here is the opinion in US v. Nixon. It is clearly not dicta, however it apparently was agreed by the parties that the AG had the authority to appoint Jaworski and there's zero interpretation of the statutes in question. The "history" of accepted special counsels doesn't help me much. That's how we got Breuen.

Man, Axios is usually better than that, as far as baity headlines. What she really means, according to the article, is that she would support the "border bill" that Trump killed, which does include wall building.

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.