dayman

can't really get into looking into this one right now for some reason but it looks like they're battling over what standard will be used in the analysis...which as often is the case in the law....will likely make a huge difference....the short of anti-trust is that it's the unreasonable restraint on trade (read into the law) and as such there is a balancing...a weighing of the procompetitive benefits and anticompetitive effects (this is called "the rule of reason")...but some things are so obviously anticompetitive the court refuses to hear evidence supporting the procompetitive effects (this is called "quick look")...you can see why this argument of which of these approaches to use is so contentious...hugely important for the drug company and also a tough burden for the gov't to meet in showing that this is illegal "per se" edit: looks like after just reading the commentary the court is very interested in thinking about what the inquiry will be on full scale rule of reason analysis and how important the strength of the patent claim is to taht inquiry and how insane the litigation can get...

idk too lazy to look now but here is a link if you want a bunch of the stuff in one shot: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/federal-trade-commission-v-watson-pharmaceuticals-inc/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

I'm fairly certain a google search can produce plenty of results. Hell it happened near me twice, and both times people would talk about how this is apparently more common than known. Young kids can really hurt each other, and often times if the head hits the ground that can result in death. It's easy to say "oh the pussification of America" but live right near where some 4th grade kid was killed in a fight at school near the school bus pickup area...it's a pretty depressing thing to have happen.

Yeah this, at first view anyway, appears to be classic collusion. Just b/c they do so under the guise of settlement...it is still plain and simple 2 separate/independent economic actors making an agreement that unreasonably restricts trade. Absent the lawsuit nobody would even question this. While the public policy reasons for encouraging settlement agreements are important, they're no where near cutting the mustard when bumping up against very basic antitrust law...competition assumes and demands independent decision making this in inherent in our way and not just culturally it's literally the law here...can't do it...

Just saying fairly recently simple punches produced death in my community. It isn't just childs play when kids strike other kids. And it has no place in school

In my community two middle school aged kids have died in a fight at school in the past 5 years. One at bus stop hit the back of his head on ground after 1 punch, i don't recall the other but i know he died. Is this normal? No. But the point stands, the old "let the kids fight it out" attitude isn't flying anymore. The bottom line is hands to yourself and also don't shoot guns at each other either. Yes words can hurt...but they need to learn to deal with words and social stigma without resorting to violence. Period.

Defending yourself from nonphysical violence with violence never is in this day in age. Too many kids hitting heads when falling to ground and dying

As romantic as these "i fought" stories are you can't have it. Large kids kill small kids with punches it happens all the time. Pussify the world? Maybe so...but physical violence is not acceptable.

More reason to be a pcp now than before

If hard caps on damages are imposed malpractice rates probably would adjust accordingly...but in states w/ aggressive tort reform that saving has not made it to the price tag and just as much if not more in some cases medical spending occurs it has had not effect in Texas (for one...being the golden child of tort reform) at all on saving for instance

The Brill article was, IMO, one of the better pieces of actual journalism that highlighted why the whole "responsible for your own health care spending" only goes so far on its own. Also the state lines and tort reform is meaningless won't do a thing to lower costs...

Hehe, I think to look at this story and say it is important for America b/c it delivers the above typed message is a bit overboard...

I still don't get how it is instructive in anyway...

So...you are basically saying that TJ Lane is an important story for bullies to know...while obviously saying it with the disclaimer "I don't approve of murder" you are still basically saying this is an important story b/c it show you can die if you bully? Or in the other direction showing bully victims they can "stand up for themselves?" This makes no sense. This story is about a kid that snapped and did unthinkable evil that is not logically proportionate to anything he may or may not have suffered as an outcast in a high school social environment...the lesson should be that childish BS is just childish BS and kids should knock off the uglyness and to the extent it can't be done the outcasts are just going to have to grit their teeth and get to adulthood...the lesson is not some grand or novel revelation about bullying...

I like how the Judge never knew apparently...

Jboys I don't even know what this topic is ... I mean yes it is unfortunate people are rude or bully other people certainly when they are young but ... this topic ...

Actually no it is not that simple but I would be for kicking them all out anyway just for ***** and giggles.

If there is data supporting something, then data showing that supporting data is no good, and you cherry pick the supporting data and leave out the other data that show the supporting data is crap....is that fabrication or confirmation bias?

Ya think we were the ones initiating hostility in 1812?

Operation...war... Little real difference these days

El oh el

My sympathy is with people like this guy...but I can't help but side with Tasker here...I mean I rarely do but lets face it we're all thinking exactly what is said above when we here stuff like this about the military...

That looks like Obama if he was electrocuted by his own force lightening bouncing off Samuel L Jackson.

lol this guy...don't pay anything you owe the government...ok..see where that gets you

Been saying it for a few years now...biggest problem is attitude. Most people not auto-pilot GOP voters find the CPAC "attitude" to be ridiculous ... a few of the meaningless policy points regarding social issues and whatnot are just not winners and neither is immigration that is true...and IMO large cuts right now would be the wrong move but I doubt that it couldn't be sold by a talented politician (although lesser cuts than some on the right want) so honestly as contentious as the budget battle is to politicos....it really is just simple...don't appear to be an obnoxious rednecks mixed w/ fat-cat puppeteers...optics of that are bad. Politics is the furthest thing from policy. Somehow the GOP hasn't figured that out yet. Policy arguments are great to me and most of us (even though I disagree with many of you) however...anyone with a brain knows that the entire thing is a popularity contest as far the WH is concerned and you have to be attractive. The truth is, at the instant moment anyway, the Dems are more willing to take a guy that may or may not give them pricks or slight stabs in the back at some point. A good portion of the GOP want a God-like ultra-conservative to come save them and that has and will get them nothing but disappointment...unhappy forever....politicians make deals....officials serve a diverse country not a party...one party is slightly more able to win the WH right now as a result.