It seems like this is close enough to the DNA case that the same principle could apply... Patent their specific process for creating it, but not the blood itself.
That way others could do research, and perhaps come up with other ways to create the same thing more efficiently, but if a company wants to build a blood factory, investing millions in equipment, then they could simply license the equipment. And if it works out good, then a second company could also license the equipment, and so on and so forth until supply meets demand and a fair price emerges.
One nice thing about artificial blood is that there is already competition in place; donors that will go in and lay on a table for a bit in exchange for a couple cookies and the knowledge that they are helping someone that is in need.
In theory, we already have the network of donors in place to meet our needs (In the US at least, probably most other places as well) and so aside from the obvious benefit of being disease free this blood will mostly be taking up the slack, meaning if they start selling it to high then no one will buy it.
Plus, if this process uses a lot of adult stem cells, then I can see this as another opportunity for poor college students to make some money, aside from selling plasma.
"In light of your unreasonable demands, we are pulling out of France. Come check out our great Apple stores convenently located just across the border for all our quality products! Only a short train ride away!"
There is an Apple store in Geneva which is pretty convenient, and the Swiss seem to be pretty cool about stuff, at least from the lack of bad news about them.
Something like "hey guys, so I have this patent, and I really don't want to use it to sue anyone, but I have these legal bills and no money. Now, if I lose, it could hurt you too, so why not help me out, I'll license it to you at a very reasonable rate, and we can keep the lawyers out of it.
Better idea; short it now, then buy in big again when the IRS criminal investigation division starts looking at them.
Also, Prenda has ongoing cases in other areas that are going to get a lot more scrutiny because of this ruling.
Not completely free, just creative commons:
He just doesn't go after people who share the digital version because he uses the digital version as a promotional tool to advertise the print version, as well as promote the Cory Doctorow brand, among other things.
By taking down these files, they are censoring his advertising which can directly effect his book sales, and hurt his brand.
And yes, lots of people will buy the print version of something that they can get in an electronic version for free. Scott Sigler is another great example of this working.
I heard an interesting point about fair use the other day, which is that a lot of things are fair use, but that being fair use doesn't mean you won't get sued. Fair use just means that if you get sued, you have a legitimate leg to stand on in court so you hopefully wont lose everything.
Or New York City.
If I ever figure out I'm in a disaster movie, I'm getting as far away from NY as possible. It always gets creamed.
For the west coast, it's usually LA... No one ever invades Seattle. Maybe that's a good place to head to.
At least in the US, you see a medicine commercial, and at the end they go over the possible side effects. "If you take this pill for your low back pain you could have swelling of the hand, dry mouth, and an oozing rash. In some rare cases people grew extra limbs, then died."
Is this a different type of disclosure?
I guess it could be the actual numbers of how many people actually grew a 3rd arm and then were strangled when it had a mind of it's own.
Or, at least how bad the rash oozed.
To be a little more accurate, this is local level government, not state level. That being said, there is a really good reason why we have multiple levels of government. Federal level can step in and make changes across the board, hopefully with the best interests on the majority of citizens in mind, like the FCC in this story.
State level can step in if the federal government goes a little to far in it's reactions.
You see this a bit with states legalizing pot, despite the DEA's wishes.
I'm not for anyone taking drugs and ruining the lives of others (self destruct if you want, but think of your family before you do) but it's pretty clear from the over full prisons and no slow down in the flood of illegal drugs that the current method isn't working; maybe we should try a different plan. For science.
Here's the info about ABC putting their stuff up online thanks to Nielson deciding to count online viewers:
This is better than a la cart channels. This trend will grow, and it will eat the cable companies from within, because all the sudden they will have to face a level of competition that they haven't had to deal with since they got their regional monopolies.
It will be interesting to see what their response is to this threat.
Disrupters will come along, such as Google fiber in KS, Muni broadband, etc, and at some point there will be a subtle shift, like is happening with traditional land lines to cell phones/voip.
I would be really interested to hear what their definition of what a Zero-TV home is.
From the sounds of it, it's not just a home that doesn't have cable/sat, but also doesn't have over the air, which makes a lot more sense given that 5% number.
The number that use both internet and over the air instead of cable is quite a bit higher if I remember correctly.
Nielson announced a good month or more ago that they were going to start counting internet tv services in their numbers such as Netflix, YouTube and Hulu, and some of the bigger networks like ABC are responding to the announcement that they are going to be putting their shows online day of instead of after a week wait because of it.
For lots of great cord cutting news check out Frame Rate on the TWIT network: http://twit.tv/show/frame-rate
It's one of my favorite weekly video netcasts.