57 karma · joined August 27, 2015
Lots of great lines. Enjoyed the highlight of the cognitive dissonance in citing the benefits of "transparency.
>"The retail experience consumers want and deserve," Cooler Screens says on their website. I would admire this turn of phrase if it was intended as a contemptful one. Cooler Screens promise to bring the experience of shopping online, "ease, relevance, and transparency." "Transparency" seems like a poor choice of language when promoting a product that infamously compares poorly to the transparent door it replaces.
"As they note, it seems like an easy thing to fix if Congress had the will:
Two reforms would help solve this problem: first, district judges should—by law—be randomly assigned to cases and, second, venue in patent cases should be tied to geographic divisions within a judicial district, not just the district as a whole."
Have you been able to find data on # of tests carried out?
He wrote a model that roughly estimates infection rates in a population based on either deaths or confirmed cases: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/17YyCmjb2Z2QwMiRR...
The model is oriented around companies, but could be applied to any gathering of people. There may be more sophisticated or accurate models out there, but I found his relatively quick to understand and apply.
For a brand name drugs, manufacturing costs are a relatively low portion of the price and margins are high (example: $20/pill, 95% gross margin). For generics, manufacturing costs are a larger portion of the price and margins are lower (example: $2/pill, 50% gross margin).
For generics, because a substantial portion of the price is driven by manufactured costs, margins can be increased substantially by a reduction of the manufactured cost (example: cost $1->0.50, price: $2, margin ->75%, a 50% increase in profitability!). For the brand name drug, the same reduction (example: cost $1->0.50, price: $20, margin ->97%) yields less increase in margin. As a result, there is less incentive for the brand name drug to push for the manufacturing cost reduction (whether or not quality is affected.) And if there is a risk of reduced quality, then the brand name has much more to lose, both in terms of profitability and in the value of it's brand name.