If this were the case (and I am not necessarily agreeing with you - bear
in mind that this appears to be a public forum! ), perhaps there is an
argument for govt to remove ambiguity by opposing the patent and bearing
any cost involved. I dont think the pharmacists should be allowed to
gain an advantage in negotiations over this issue. If the patent does
have merit then good luck to them. It would be a sad day for innovation
though
R
Oliver wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Patterson
Sent: Friday, 4 August 2006 10:27 AM
It would be nice for the guild to state what their intentions
are with the patent.
I can tell you what the Guild's intentions are. They are to help its
members to make as much money as possible by all legal means. If
enforcing their patent helps in this aim, they will do so.
The only reason that I can imagine for them to choose not to so would be
for them to trade this off against something else that their members
want, such as a guarantee from government that it will never allow
pharmacies to be set up inside supermarkets.
Oliver Frank, general practitioner
255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens
South Australia 5086
Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
