Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Over-the-Border Drug Debate Heats to Boiling
When Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois announced in mid-September that his state was considering buying drugs from Canada for its employees and citizens, the debate over cross-border drug purchases via the Internet and by other means, got even hotter than it was before. The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a battle similar in scope to the music industry's Internet copyright infringement war, but because no suits have been brought against 80-year-old diabetics buying insulin from pharmacies in Montreal, national debate on the issue of the purchase of foreign drugs has gotten less press of late than the debate over music piracy. Still, for the millions of purchasers of pharmaceutical products and the companies that manufacture and sell them, few subjects are quite as contentious or consequential.
Foreign companies are offering consumers in the United States both Internet and mail-order access to pharmaceutical products, which are often cheaper than U.S. drugs because of government subsidies and price controls. Canadian drugs, for example, are on average 67% less expensive than those sold in the United States. Americans can also easily travel over the Canadian and Mexican borders to buy their pharmaceutical supplies in person, even taking bus trips organized specifically for the drug purchaser. And although Canada is not the only country that provides Americans with access to foreign drugs, Canadian drug companies seem to be the biggest threat to American pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers, largely because of their close proximity to the United States and the trust most Americans have in the safety of Canadian products.
Some drug makers, losing the profits that would normally come from the lucrative U.S. market, have attempted to fight back by choking the supply of drugs into the United States, but with limited success. For example, in January, GlaxoSmithKline announced it would stop selling its products to Canadian drug stores that sell to Americans, and AstraZeneca's Canadian arm has begun limiting the quantities of products it will sell to Canadian pharmacies, allowing them to buy only amounts that are in keeping with historical trends.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?