"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > JM! > > On 12/26/06, JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On 12/22/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote: >> >> >> >> > Transparency can only be defined between two parties. It doesn't >> >> > require that something be available to the public for it to be >> >> > transparent >> >> >> >> Unless the transactions involve PUBLIC MONEY. You forgot that. >> >> >> > >> > Not really... The government can buy generic drugs and not get the >> > formula in the process: but the price and the terms are public >> > information. >> >> Actually, they can and usually do. Once a drug company patents their >> formula (and that's the only way to get a generic label), then it's in >> the public space -- with the caveat that the company patenting it will >> have limited exclusive rights to the drug. >> > > Hmmm... "The government can buy generic drugs and not get the formula > in the process" which means the procurement of the drug(s) does not > include the formula -- rather the fact that it is generic already > exposes the formula to scrutiny by the public. Having that said, it is > not a prerequisite that any drug's formula be public information for > that drug to be procured by government.
No, the fact of it being *generic* is the fact that the formula is out there in the public -- it's a *prerequisite*. -- JM Ibanez Senior Software Engineer Orange & Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
