Google and Facebook: Two Largest Big Brother Entities?

Google's top executives, CEO Larry Page and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt have dodged requests to testify   at a hearing by the Senate's antitrust subcommittee for over a year; however, it appears that's about to come to an end. The Wall Street Journal claims the FTC is planning to issue subpoenas to both Page and Schmidt, who are getting prepared by turning to none other than a former Microsoft prosecutor.

As Google tries to fend off a U.S. probe of its multibillion-dollar search business, it has been quietly adding to its stable of antitrust advisers, which, Reuters has learned, includes a former Microsoft prosecutor.

At the same time, Google is proving itself extraordinarily useful to the US government, who has filed more than twice as many demands for data about Google users than any other other country in the past six months, and Google has complied 94% of the time. Google's cozy relationship with the government is a little disconcerting, considering there is no doubt that the government wants to censor the Internet as much as possible.

Google Transparency Report

Google CEO Eric Schmidt claimed that Google “will know so much about its users that the search engine will be able to help the government them plan their lives.”

And, Facebook is the greatest spy vehicle ever created according to Julian Assange.

Read more...

Big Pharma or Us?

Generic drugs make up 70% of all prescriptions, and according to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman, "in the last decade alone, generic drugs have saved consumers, businesses and state and federal governments $734 billion." Despite that savings, the cost of drugs continues to escalate. In large part this is due to what is regarded as the future of health care: biotechnology drugs, or "biologics".

Simply put, biologics are protein based drugs made from living organisms - hamster ovaries, mare's urine, pig intestines, blood - grown inside living cells, as opposed to chemicals, normally showing better efficacy and safety than conventional drugs. Used to treat everything from cancer to multiple sclerosis to psoriasis, biologics currently make up about 20% of the pharmaceutical market - predicted to make up half the market by 2015 - and are the fastest-growing class of medicines, with more than $40 billion in annual sales in the United States.

However, the FDA has no authority to approve lower-cost, generic versions, biosimilars or “follow-on biologics” (“FOBs”) so, these drugs very rarely face competition from generic copies. FOBs (generic form of biologics) could save patients, insurers and our government anywhere from $67 billion to $108 billion during the first decade, and between $236 billion to $378 billion over the next two decades according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

The contentious issue here is the length of time that brand names can hold a monopoly before the FDA can approve the entry of generic competitors. Competition from generic drugs has substantially reduced prescription drug prices and overall prescription drug expenditures, increased access to therapeutic drugs for more Americans, and hastened the pace of innovation.

The provision in proposed health care legislation would allow pharmaceutical companies to extend monopolies to 12-years exclusivity once the product is licensed by the FDA. Even after 12 years, this legislation would allow a pharmaceutical company to extend market protection for its biologic by making minor modifications to the drug to effect dosing, for example.

Generic brand medications only make up for 17 percent of all profits, and generic prescription companies are more focused on the hit that consumers will take financially if longer terms of exclusivity are given to brand-names and biologics. Brand names and biologics, however, are more focused on their profits.

So, why do biologics need a 12-year instead of a 5-year monopoly?

The answer is, of course, profit, and not just a little profit...a lot of profit. According to the pharmaceutical trade association, the average research and development costs are approximately the same for biologics as they are for conventional drugs. Not only that, generics face higher than normal barriers to entering the market. The FTC recently released a report entitled, “Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition” which addressed questions that have arisen about whether the price of biologics might be reduced by competition if there were a statutory process to encourage biosimilars or FOBs to enter and compete with pioneer (brand name) biologics once a pioneer drug’s patents have expired. The FTC did not recommend biologics any years of exclusivity protection.

Based on these findings, the Report concludes that patent protection and market-based pricing will promote competition by FOBs, as well as spur biologic innovation. It states that legislation to put a process in place for the abbreviated FDA approval of FOBs is likely to be an efficient way to bring FOBs to market, because of the time and cost savings it would provide.

In addition, the Report states that the 12- to 14-year regulatory exclusivity period is too long to promote innovation by these firms, particularly since they likely will retain substantial market share after FOB entry. The Report concludes that special procedures to resolve patent issues between pioneer and FOB manufacturers before FDA approval, which are not needed,
could undermine patent incentives and harm consumers. Finally, the Report states that FOB manufacturers are unlikely to need additional incentives – such as a 180-day marketing exclusivity period – to develop interchangeable FOB products.

Links:

Act and Myth of Exclusivity Incentive

Competition Counts

Frequently Asked Questions About Therapeutic Biological Products

Emerging Health Care Competition and Consumer Issues

See How Pay-for-Delay Settlements Make Consumers and the Federal Government Pay More for Much Needed Drugs: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Comm. on Energy and Commerce.

Read more...

8 Days Left To Save the Internet!

Net Neutrality, which is the principle that all content on the Internet should be accessed equally and without having to pay service providers extra money, is at stake.

In a nutshell, the future of all media is going toward the internet and big profit driven corporations such as Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, to name a few, do not want to miss out on cashing in on this huge shift taking place right now, or as someone on the internet said, "they're afraid someone is going to spend a nickel and they're not going to get 4 cents of it." ...the way things seem to work more and more these days.

The pipes and the wires responsible for allowing us to enjoy the Internet in the comfort of our homes are the very same pipes and wires the networks and the cable companies have as well.

So, the main question is “Who provides the service?”

Will the internet become a centralized entity much like cable TV or phone service? In other words a 'vast wasteland'. Or will it remain decentralized and a valuable source of knowledge and venue for the free exchange of ideas. Will it remain a medium where diversity of thought and discourse flow freely without the interference of big business or big government?

We all know the internet is also full of infantile, vanity-driven garbage which makes it difficult to evaluate or discriminate between what's good or bad, to separate the wheat from the chaff, but the answer is not to hand it over to big business...that will guarantee all of the content on the Internet will be nothing but trash!

As Harold Feld, MAP (Media Access Projects)'s Senior Vice President, said,

"The FTC explicitly sidesteps what should be the central issue in our Network Neutrality policy debate: What will happen to the current vibrant civic and political discussions on the Internet if the cable and phone companies get to decide which speakers deserve faster speed? The Supreme Court has called the Internet a medium ‘as diverse as human thought.’ Without Network Neutrality, it threatens to follow the path of radio, television and cable and become instead a ‘vast wasteland’ where the ability to pay vast sums for premium treatment trumps the power of ideas."

The problem with the Federal Trade Commission’s new report on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy is that now instead of the internet being an open source of information, thought, and political discourse, these greedy companies will get to discriminate content for us and who gets online, who gets to use their services and at what speed. The Gatekeepers (large corporations) will stifle innovations, as well as many other components important to leveling the playing field, which is now contributing to cultivating a grassroots revival of public participation in political life.

Read more...