While Nokia has quickly become an afterthought in the high-end phone world after being such a dominant player for so long, it's been trying to make a comeback lately. My friend Tom recently sent over an interesting move that Nokia made: releasing its own 3D printing kit for anyone who wants to print cases for their flagship Lumia 820, that goes beyond merely the printing templates:

...we are going to release 3D templates, case specs, recommended materials and best practices—everything someone versed in 3D printing needs to print their own custom Lumia 820 case.

It's still very early in the whole 3D printing world, so this may seem rather simple, but it's neat to see companies starting to figure out how to make use of these kinds of new technologies in a positive way, rather than ignoring them or (worse) actively fighting them. In fact, it's clear that Nokia is thinking beyond just this:

In the future, I envision wildly more modular and customizable phones. Perhaps in addition to our own beautifully-designed phones, we could sell some kind of phone template, and entrepreneurs the world over could build a local business on building phones precisely tailored to the needs of his or her local community. You want a waterproof, glow-in-the-dark phone with a bottle-opener and a solar charger? Someone can build it for you—or you can print it yourself!



Again, small steps, but it's through these kinds of learning experiences that we often see something bigger emerge.

There are lots of ways to store information nowadays -- from cloud services to nano-lithography to synthesizing custom strands of DNA. Some methods are cheaper or more convenient than others, but if physical space is really a premium, then encoding a gazillion bits of data on a few grams of DNA seems like the way to go. Here are just a few projects working on using DNA as an archiving medium.

• A recent project encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets (along with some other text and images) on DNA, putting 5.2 million bits of information (including some error correction) into some tangible goo. It costs roughly $12,400 to encode a megabyte of data and $220 to read it, and since sequencing DNA will never become obsolete (and is getting cheaper to do), DNA storage could be an excellent archiving technology. [url]
• A milligram of DNA *could* contain all the text every book in the Library of Congress -- and all digital data that humans have ever created could be stored on a handful of DNA. We'd just have to make sure never to forget how to translate the digitized data from DNA back into a comprehensible form. [url]
• Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) created the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell in 2010 -- and included a genetic watermark in the bacteria's DNA. The DNA watermark encoded some extra data such as the names of 46 researchers who worked on the project, as well as a URL and some famous quotations. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

My friends over at Engine Advocacy (disclaimer: I'm on the steering committee and advise them on certain issues, but have nothing to do with this event) are planning their second Startup Day on the Hill -- where they bring a bunch of entrepreneurs to Washington DC, and actually get them talking to lawmakers. This is a big deal and a useful opportunity. As we all know, DC has a long history of ignoring startups, but the goal of Engine is to change that, and this is one of many cool and useful programs that they're doing. Among other things, there will be a Demo Day for policy makers, roundtable discussions with some of the top tech policy people in the White House, including CTO Todd Park and Senior Policy Advisor Doug Rand (both are very interesting guys). And, of course, a bunch of meetings with elected officials in Congress and their staffs. These kinds of things are great for getting folks in DC to realize that startups and innovation are real things. Too often, it seems that they only look to big legacy companies for tech policy, and that can distort the picture. One way to fix that is to get them introduced to more startups and entrepreneurs. So, please, please, check this out and see if you can go. It's happening February 26th and 27th with all the details on the site.

Update: In case this isn't enough, there's a follow up to this story, as Teri Buhl is apparently not a fan of our writeup.

Choose your battles carefully. This warning/advice is more relevant than ever in an era of instant feedback, social media and thousands of pages of "relevant results" microseconds away. Here's a small story of how not to deal with a problem caused by your own actions.

Mark Bennett, a Houston criminal defense lawyer, was recently pointed in the direction of a rather inexplicable statement attached to a Twitter profile. Teri Buhl, an investigative journalist specializing in Wall Street, has this wording on her profile page:

A friend of Bennett's (@gideonstrumpet) asked, "What does that mean?" Buhl replied:


Gideon sensibly replied "ok thanks. I don't know how you prevent that, though. I could write a post quoting you."

At this point, Buhl went "legal," responding that she would sue him because she "stated" her tweets are not "on record comments." And she certainly could, although one wonders who would take her case. Gideon asked for a few second opinions on the legality of Buhl's claim, and got answers from these two gentlemen whose names are likely familiar to Techdirt regulars, Marc Randazza and Popehat.


So, we have someone thinking their public tweets are private property, and therefore lawsuit-bait if anyone attempts to "quote" them. While Twitter's TOS assures users that their Tweets are their property, it's quite another thing to state something publicly and then claim you don't want it quoted. Would a retweet be a violation of Buhl's statement? After all, it's a "direct quote" originating from another account. What about embedding the tweet? Still a problem? Even if Buhl's claim wasn't baseless, she'd still have a hell of a time enforcing it. If you don't want something you said going public, why on earth would you use a very public platform like Twitter to say it?

It gets uglier from there, though. Buhl decided to continue her legal threats via email shortly after Mark Bennett posted screencaps of her tweets.


This prompted Bennett to do a little digging. For someone who's so concerned with retaining strict control of her information, Buhl certainly doesn't seem to mind throwing around other people's information -- even the contents of a teenage girl's personal journal.

A New Canaan woman police say posted personal and sexually explicit information on Facebook about her boyfriend's 17-year-old daughter was arraigned Tuesday in state Superior Court on charges of second-degree harassment, second-degree breach of peace and interfering with an officer.

Teri Buhl, 38, of 81 Locust Ave., appeared briefly before Judge Maureen D. Dennis with her lawyer, Christopher W. Caldwell of Norwalk...

Buhl surrendered on Oct. 27 at New Canaan police headquarters after learning that a warrant had been obtained for her arrest. She was released after posting a $5,000 bond.

Here's how Buhl allegedly set about "publishing" someone else's much more private "statements:"

A look at the documents that led to the warrant and arrest tells a disturbing story of Web-based strong-arming and privacy invasion from a woman who knew her victim and attempted to disguise her own identity.

New Canaan police Youth Bureau Commander Sgt. Carol Ogrinc said in an affidavit that the girl and her father, Paul Brody, came to police June 24 to report that someone using the name 'Tasha Moore' had posted personal notes from the girl's journal on Facebook.

The girl said she kept the journal in her dresser drawer in her bedroom, and that she wrote the notes shown on Facebook last April. The girl said she had replied to the e-mail address provided by Moore on her Facebook page, and had told Moore to stop posting personal information about her or she would contact police.

Moore reportedly answered that she welcomed the legal action and knew the girl's father was a corporate lawyer. Moore said she didn't think the girl would contact police because then her father would find out about the embarrassing information from the journal, according to Ogrinc's statement.

As Bennett points out, it's apparently OK to publicly post information from a minor's personal journal, but not OK to post a public Teri Buhl tweet anywhere else on the internet.

Buhl has finally done what she should have done a long time ago and taken her account private. This will likely be the end of this story as Buhl has probably realized she's on very shaky ground. (This belated tweet captured via her page at Muck Rack seems to confirm this.)


With a trial date set for March 22nd, she may not have time to fight another legal battle. Not only that, but if she's going to go after "republishers" like Bennett and Gideon, she's also going to need to free up time to go after less human foes like favstar, Topsy and yfrog.

Here's a suggestion: don't antagonize people by attaching implicit legal threats to your public profile. All it does is attract the kind of attention you don't want -- for instance, another public airing of your alleged illegal actions. It doesn't win you any new friends or followers and it certainly does very little to raise anyone's estimation of you. Instead, it makes you look like exactly what you are -- someone who's going to slip into "sue" mode at the drop of a tweet.

In the past, many have noted that proprietary formats for content almost guarantee that certain works will be lost to history. Backwards compatibility becomes a problem, and before long content that could be accessed by tons of programs may be impossible to open just a few years later. For libraries and archvists this is a huge problem -- and it's made even worse when you add DRM to the mix. It appears that even the "anti-piracy" folks in France recognize this, but only to a limited extent.

According to the French publication, Numerama, Hadopi (the agency in charge of stamping out infringement in France), has published an opinion in which it suggests that content creators give the French National Library (Bibliothèque Nationale de France or BNF) works without any DRM on them. As they quite rightly note, in order to better make sure that the culture is preserved and that future archives are accessible, a lack of DRM makes much more sense. They even note that just providing a DRM'd copy with the keys to decrypt it, or with circumvention tools, really isn't sufficient for proper archiving.

That said, the report also then appears to fret about the BNF leaking these unprotected works out into the world. The suggestion seems to be that (wait for it...) the BNF then create its own DRM to lock up the unprotected works that it needs to keep them from getting locked up. In other words, the whole plan is pretty useless anyway.

This is just an opinion, and not binding in any way. So apparently the French government is still considering what sorts of requirements it intends to put on submissions to the BNF, but once again it seems like an overly aggressive "fear of piracy" may actually lead to some bad technical decisions for the sake of "protecting" some works against infringement.

It's one of those mistakes you only make once. Unfortunately for British entertainment retailer HMV and consulting firm Deloitte, due to the circumstances under which the mistake occurred, once is all they got and once was all it took.

HMV was in the midst of a 190-person layoff (with assistance from Deloitte) when it discovered the company's official Twitter account was still in the hands of a layoffee.

Yesterday HMV, the beleaguered British entertainment retailer, laid off 190 employees, in an effort to cut costs and right its balance sheet. The company apparently pulled a large group into human resources and gave them the bad news. While this was going on, one employee, Poppy Rose, who had been an HMV community manager and thus had access to the corporate Twitter account, started live tweeting about the layoffs.

Over a period of around 20 minutes, she sent out a series of notes expressing her rising sense of alarm to HMV’s 61,500 followers (that number has since risen to 73,350).

Just before the plug was pulled, Poppy Rose gave a shout-out to its HMV's still-employed marketing director, who had noticed altogether too late that someone was live-Tweeting the layoffs. The question, "How do I shut down Twitter?" appears to have been answered by Chinese hackers (or maybe non-Chinese hackers -- hedging!), who made off with info from 250,000 accounts in the midst of some rolling blackouts.

A better question would have been: "Before we start laying people off, maybe someone should see who is running our social media accounts and whether or not they appear on the Employee Load Balancing Sheet." Employees often take to the modern day airwaves of Twitter, Facebook and presumably even Google+ to vent after layoffs, firings, disciplinary actions and random shitty days. Why anyone thought this mass layoff would be different is beyond me.

Most likely, the thought never occurred to anyone on the "culling" side of the equation until the Twitter feed began lighting up with disparaging comments about the current goings-on. HMV, in particular, was primed for this sort of embarrassment, seeing as it obviously felt a social media presence was important (hence the Twitter account), but not important enough to hand out to anyone higher than "intern" on the organizational chart. This is something more employers should be aware of, especially considering company Facebook and Twitter accounts are "standard equipment" in this day and age.

Poppy Rose, whose firing-related tweets added another 12,000 followers to HMV's Twitter account, clearly knows how to use social media. And although the tweets she fired off were far from complimentary, they clearly could have been much, much worse. Despite holding the company's online reputation in her newly-jobless hands, she showed restraint while simultaneously demonstrating how effective these tools can be.

“I wanted to show the power of Social Media to those who refused to be educated,” she tweeted. “Just to set something straight, I did not ‘hijack’ the hmv twitter account. I actually assumed sole responsibility of Twitter & Facebook over two years ago, as an intern. When asked (this afternoon), I gladly provided the password to head office. I also set another member of staff up as a manager on Facebook, and removed myself from the admin list. I didn’t resist any requests to cooperate.”

I'm sure many companies have viewed this story with interest, crossing themselves and saying, "There but for the grace of God go I and several dozen of my former employees, with signed NDAs and less-than-adequate severance packages." As ugly as a mass layoff is, failing to do a bit of due diligence in terms of your social media accounts leaves the door open for something much uglier. Sure, your former employees may take to the internet to vent about their treatment at your hands, but at least it won't look like it's coming out of your mouth.

Julian Assange recently gave an address, by video, to the Oxford Union Society. You can see a video of the whole thing here. When Assange is speaking, here's what you see: The background, you can see, is just an enlarged image of the Oxford Union logo. But that's not what Assange actually had behind him. According to Wikileaks, Assange purposely had put up a still image from the "collateral murder" video that Wikileaks had released, showing US soldiers firing on a Reuters journalist and some other civilians in Iraq. The plan, according to Assange, was to use that image "to highlight the importance of whistleblowers" to get out information such as that video.

It's bad enough that the Oxford Union digitally replaced the backdrop. However, even worse is the ridiculous excuse it gave. In response to Wikileaks' accusations, the Oxford Union claimed it replaced the image because it didn't want to violate the copyright in the video:

After taking extensive legal advice on this matter, the Union was advised not to display the background video in question for copyright reasons.

This is bogus on so many levels. First off, and most importantly, the video itself is a "work" of the US government, and as such is simply not protected by copyright law. Rather it is definitively in the public domain as per Section 105 of the Copyright Act. And, of course, even if it was subject to copyright, it would still be a ridiculous claim. There would be obvious fair use in merely showing a single still image from a longer video, especially given the context of the use and the speech. And, yes, this is in the UK, rather than the US, but even under UK "fair dealing" concepts, this would almost certainly be considered fair dealing.

Ridiculously, when Wikileaks explained this to the Oxford Union, it shot back with an even more confused response, focusing on the fact that nothing was "censored" and that this was all about "respecting copyright."

We would like to point out that none of the speeches made during the evening in question were 'censored'; neither was any part of the Q&A sessions.

Mr Assange's speech was broadcast in its entirety, and as such we would encourage people to appreciate the distinction between censorship and respecting copyright.

Except, that's not true. As Wikileaks has made clear, the image was an important part of the expression he was making -- and just because you use a visual, that does not mean that it does not count as a form of speech. But the bigger joke is the idea that this has anything, whatsoever, to do with "respecting" copyright. If you "respect" copyright, you understand the difference between what's in the public domain and what's not, and you don't claim you blocked public domain material to respect the copyright. That's the opposite of respecting copyright. It's bastardizing copyright for the purpose of stifling expression.

In a bit of news that will shock just about no one, the Obama administration did a legal review over what it's allowed to do in making use of "cyberweapons," and concluded that it has "broad powers" to do all sorts of stuff. The specifics, of course, will remain classified:

That decision is among several reached in recent months as the administration moves, in the next few weeks, to approve the nation's first rules for how the military can defend, or retaliate, against a major cyberattack. New policies will also govern how the intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attacks on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code - even if there is no declared war.

Comforting, huh? And, by comforting, I mean "terrifying." While we've already talked a few times about the US using "cyber weapons" against Iran (hello Stuxnet, Flame, etc.) this NY Times report suggests that the White House is being freed up to do much more, though one "concession" is that the use of such tools must be approved by the President, rather than allowing various agencies (Defense Department, mainly) to run off and starting attacking others electronically without first getting it approved by the President.

In the meantime, this looks like yet another case of the White House not minding leaks that make it look good. As we've noted, whenever there are leaks that embarrass the White House, they come down like a ton of bricks on whoever did the leaking as being guilty of espionage. But when the White House itself leaks information about how awesome and powerful they themselves are, no one ever seems to get arrested.

There are some absolutely ridiculous situations created by the fact that all creative works are automatically granted a copyright on being put into a fixed form. Mostly, we just ignore these situations, because the vast majority of them never matter. But, as copyright has become more and more ridiculous, some people are beginning to start to make use of the stupid fact that all kinds of things can be "owned" that probably shouldn't be "ownable." Take, for example, school work. If a student creates something, it is covered by copyright, though most people never really consider or care about that. However, the board of education for Prince George County in Maryland is apparently considering a new "copyright policy" in which all students and staff would have to assign all of those copyrights over to the school system itself.

The school board claims it's doing this to keep up with the times -- especially the growing use of things like electronic curricula created by teachers, but obviously the policy goes way beyond that. Of course, we've seen other schools get greedy and seek to copyright and sell off curricula created by teachers. And that's already a crazy idea. But to have students' work included as well is (rightfully) angering a number of people.

Either way, this is yet another example of the insanity created by "ownership society," in which people are being fed the ridiculous line that all ideas and information can and should be "owned" thanks to things like copyright and patents. Is it any wonder that now our public schools even going down to elementary schools, are seeking the "rights" to student creations in order to create for profit ventures? This is a public school system, a place in which knowledge is supposed to be shared for the sake of learning. And the lesson they're sending is that information is to be hoarded by powerful entities for the sake of profits. Shameful.

Just in case you had slipped into some sort of uneasy comfort thinking maybe, JUST MAYBE, the government had already gathered as much personal information as it "needed" (all without warrants), along comes the news that another agency is looking to get just a little more.

Via Reason comes the news that the DEA is attempting to bypass state law in Oregon in order to access private prescription records without a warrant. Some might argue that the DEA has some sort of right to know who's taking what considering its position as "drug war enforcer," but as the ACLU points out, prescription records can reveal some very sensitive information.

Records of the prescription medications we take can reveal some of the most private and sensitive information about us. Knowing that a person self-administers prescription testosterone injections can reveal that he is a transgender man undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Knowing that someone takes Xanax, Valium, or other anti-anxiety medications can reveal a diagnosis of mental illness. If a person is on Marinol, a medication containing synthetic THC, she is likely fighting weight loss associated with AIDS. A prescription for a narcotic painkiller such as codeine or oxycodone might indicate a chronic or terminal illness. Ritalin and Adderall are associated with treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The state of Oregon tracks prescriptions like these for several good reasons: to prevent drug overdoses and cut down on substance abuse. While it would seem the DEA should be able to access the records carte blanche because of the latter concern, Oregon has made the right move and added a warrant requirement in order to protect patients' information. The DEA, like many other government agencies (*coughFBI*), has been using administrative subpoenas to circumvent this requirement.

Fortunately, the state of Oregon is fighting back, with some help from the ACLU.

The State of Oregon sued the DEA in federal court to defend its right to require law enforcement, including federal agencies, to obtain the warrants required by state law. Today, the ACLU filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of several patients and a doctor whose prescription records are contained in the PDMP. Our clients are concerned that the privacy of their medical information will be violated if the DEA is allowed to search through prescription records without a warrant. If the DEA can demonstrate to a judge that it has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that prescription records will provide evidence of that crime, then it can legitimately obtain records from the PDMP. Because prescription records and the medical information they reveal are such a sensitive matter, protecting their privacy is vital, and we argue that obtaining private and confidential prescription records without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU points out that the "third-party doctrine" is being used to portray information provided to a doctor or pharmacist as exempt from warrant requirements. Courts have shown in the past that information turned over to a third party is no longer protected by the "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is a false equation, the ACLU states:

We disagree with this principle—but even on its own terms, the third party doctrine should not apply here. Medical records are different than the trash we put out on the curb, or the canceled checks we provide to our bank, or the electrical usage records we transmit to the power company. The information we share with our doctors and pharmacists can be some of our most private information. Just because we trust our doctors with our medical information doesn’t mean the DEA should be able to easily access it too.

In case you were wondering what sort of harm could come from unfettered access to medical records by law enforcement, here's a splendid example that combines prescription records with the domestic wing of the War on Drugs into one horrible (and horribly stupid) incident.

Barbara Alice Mahaffey died of colon cancer in her bedroom last May. [Vernal, UT resident] Ben D. Mahaffey, 80, said he was distraught and trying to make sure his wife's body would be taken to the funeral home with dignity, when he says officers insisted he help them look for the drugs.

"I was holding her hand saying goodbye when all the intrusion happened," he told the Deseret News.

Barbara Mahaffey died at 12:35 a.m. with Mahaffey, a Navy medic in the Korean War, and his friend, an EMT, at her side. In addition to police, a mortician and a hospice worker arrived at the home about 12:45 a.m., Mahaffey said. He said he doesn't know how police came to be there.

Mahaffey said he was treated as if he were going to sell the painkillers, which included OxyContin, oxycodone and morphine, on the street.

Yep. If your loved ones use certain painkillers, you can expect to be raided at any time, especially if they've just passed on, leaving behind a treasure trove of highly marketable controlled substances. But don't worry, Vernal City Manager Ken Bassett would expect nothing less than a raid by Vernal's finest during the final moments of his loved ones' lives:

In his suit, Mahaffey alleges that Vernal City Manager Ken Bassett told Mahaffey he was being "'overly sensitive' and that police were just trying to protect the public from illegal use of prescription drugs." The suit also alleges that Bassett then told Mahaffey "his own parents had recently died and he wouldn't have cared had police searched their house for drugs."

Also noted: this is "common practice" for Vernal police, although it's often "selectively applied." Yay! A badly written law, randomly enforced and noxious from any angle, that latter of which perfectly describes the DEA's attempt to circumvent patient privacy by exploiting a few loopholes. 
 

The UK has been surprisingly open to reforming copyright law in a more reasonable direction over the past few years, though (not surprisingly) copyright maximalists have been pushing back on such plans. Paul Keating alerts us to the news that, thankfully, a proposal to establish a special "IP czar" in the UK, whose role would only be to increase IP, has been rejected by the House of Lords:

Conservative Party peer Lord Jenkin of Roding had tabled an amendment to establish a new post of Director General of Intellectual Property Rights. The holder would have responsibility for promoting the creation of new intellectual property; protecting and promoting the interests of UK IP owners; coordinating effective enforcement of UK IP rights; and educating consumers on the nature and value of intellectual property.

Note those four responsibilities. Increase "new" intellectual property (it's unclear if they mean laws or content itself...), protect IP owners, increase and coordinate enforcement and "educate" consumers. Notice that nowhere in there is any recognition that the supposed purpose of those laws is to benefit the public. It would seem a lot more reasonable that any such role should be about increasing the spread of knowledge, watching out for over-enforcement, protecting the interests of the public and educating IP owners on not abusing the law. But, apparently, that sort of thing is what governments are interested in these days.

Back in March last year, the Indian government announced that it was granting its first compulsory license, for the anti-cancer drug marketed as Nexavar, whose $70,000 per year price-tag put it out of reach of practically everyone in India. Nexavar's manufacturer, the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, naturally appealed against that decision, and the hearing before the India Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB) has now begun. Jamie Love has provided a useful report on the proceedings; here's his summary of what's at stake:

The outcome of this trial, which focuses on the cancer drug Nexavar, is a matter of first impression for the IPAB, and is expected to set precedents on a wide range of issues, including the permissible grounds for granting compulsory licenses, the relationship between the India patent law and the TRIPS Agreement, and the setting of terms and conditions for the compulsory license, including the royalty rates.

Clearly, then, this is a crucially important battle for both sides, and Bayer has started throwing around some huge R&D numbers in an attempt to convince the IPAB that it should be allowed to retain its monopoly in India to recoup those costs:

Bayer presented a January 9, 2013 affidavit from Harold Dinter which made the claim that from 1999 to 2005 Bayer had spent "2 billion euros (approximately US$ 2.5 billion) in the identification and development of anti-cancer molecules leading to the successful approval of Nexavar in 2005." Dinter did not provide detailed support for the numbers, but said they were based upon Bayer's general R&D outlays for anti-cancer drugs, including but not limited to Nexavar, and that the estimate was supported by a new December 2012 study by Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jon Sussex and Adrian Towse, published by the Office of Health Economics (OHE). Despite its name, the OHE is not part of the government, but rather a largely industry funded private consulting firm. The study itself was paid for by AztraZeneca. Dinter and Bayer's lawyer also made extensive reference to the work of Joseph DiMasi, an academic who is also a drug company consultant.

In other words, it's the usual "don't worry about the details, just take our word for it" lack of transparency that characterizes the entire pharma industry. But this $2.5 billion is insanely high, even for an industry that regularly inflates the outlay on drug development by an order of magnitude. As well as the generic implausibility of such a high figure, Love cites a number of specific reasons why it's extremely unlikely. You can read the details in his post, but here's a key section:

Bayer's partner in the development of Nexavar is Onyx Pharmaceuticals. Onyx published annual estimates of its R&D spending on Nexavar.

…

Bayer paid for all research from 1994 to 1999 ($26.1 million), and this included research on several compounds in addition to the one now marketed as sorafenib/Nexavar. From 2000 onward, Bayer and Onyx split the R&D costs 50:50, and Onyx's share of the R&D costs were $134.8 million. The outlays on the entire R&D program that lead to the 2005 approval of Nexavar for Kidney cancer were $26.1 + (134.8 x 2) = $295.7 million. Of the $295.7 million, only a fraction was spent on the development of Nexavar for kidney cancer, and some of that benefited from a 50 percent tax credit under the US Orphan Drug Act.

To the put the entire $295.7 million into perspective, ignoring the tax credits, that represents a little more than one quarter of the current global sales for sorafenib/Nexavar, a product that will maintain its monopoly in most markets through 2020.

$295.7 [million] is also just 11.8 percent of the $2.5 billion estimate that Bayer wants the IPAB to accept as its R&D costs.

No wonder that Bayer was unwilling to explain how it arrived at that extraordinary figure. But it's hard to see how the pharma company expects to win this case citing numbers that are basically an insult to the intelligence of India's experts.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Yesterday was the day that, each year, proves that people do not in fact hate advertising. They actually like it quite a bit if the advertising is good. What they hate is crappy and annoying advertising. Of course, every Super Bowl, various brands duke it out to see who can get the most bang for their buck in Super Bowl advertisements -- which this year went for a cool $3.5 million for a basic spot. Still, many people are pointing out that the real winner of the Super Bowl advertising fight wasn't from one of the TV commercials at all, but rather Oreo's advertising agency, who sprung into immediate action when the power went out at the Super Bowl. Within just a few minutes (I think slightly less than 15), Oreo had put out the following tweet:

Power out? No problem. twitter.com/Oreo/status/29…

— Oreo Cookie (@Oreo) February 4, 2013

Just in case you can't see the embed, it says "Power out? No problem." And then had the following image with the caption "You can still dunk in the dark." A few other brands got out some clever tweets, such as Walgreens tweeting that it carries candles or Audi tweeting that it was sending some LEDs over to the Super Bowl. Twitter claims that four minutes after the lights went out an advertiser had already bid on "power outage" as a search term (you'd think "black out" might have been more effective). But Oreo actually got that graphic together, with the caption, and got it all up online quite quickly. I'm in awe, given that with big brands you normally expect there to be a bit too much red tape and "approvals" for anything like that. For Oreo, the key to having this work was that its ad agency folks and all of the key people from Oreo were in a room together, so the approvals went fast.

Tide also got a "blackout" graphic and joke online, three minutes after Oreo. It put up a weak image with a caption: "We can't get your blackout, But we can get your stains out." Kudos for trying, but definitely a step behind Oreo.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Oreo did, in fact, pay for a Super Bowl commercial as well, though it was showing up on lists of the worst Super Bowl commercials of the year. Whoever came up with the image and the tweet in record time may have saved the Super Bowl for Oreo.

Of course, all of this does raise a larger point about marketing and advertising these days. Doing a good job often has less to do with how much money you spend than with how good you are at actually connecting with people -- and a well-timed tweet and graphic can do wonders.