JOBS ACT - JOHN BERLAU
Nationalreview.com: A Breather from Regulations
The JOBS Act lives up to its name
In truth, the JOBS Act, which President Obama is set to sign today, is neither meager nor radical. It will reduce some significant regulatory barriers to job creation, most notably the accounting mandates of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The IPO Task Force — an Obama-coordinated gathering of entrepreneurs, investors, and academics — found that the regulation-induced decline in the number of U.S. initial public offerings over the last decade may have cost the economy as many as 22 million jobs. > Read more on Nationalreview.com
> Interview John Berlau
BPA CHEMICAL SCARE - ANGELA LOGOMASINI
Openmarket.org: Witch Hunt Continues on Bisphenol A
This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yet again reaffirmed the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), but the witch hunt for evidence against BPA safety continues. Environmental activists and others still won’t accept the findings — encouraging more government spending to study the chemical. But no matter how much the feds spend, researchers are unlikely to find anything new to condemn BPA.
Human exposure to BPA — which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins used to line food cans and other things — is simply too low to have public health impacts. > Read the full comment on Openmarket.org
> Interview Angela Logomasini
SCOTUS PATENT RULING - GREG CONKO
Medicalprogresstoday.com: Mayo v. Prometheus and Diagnostic Patents: What Does the Supreme Court Decision Really Mean?
The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Mayo v. Prometheus Labs case invalided two patents claiming methods for analyzing blood test results to determine correct drug doses. The decision is likely to have substantial impacts on the drug, diagnostic, and biotech industries because it calls into question the validity of a huge amount of intellectual property that those industries rely upon.
My take is that the Court got this one right as a matter of patent law - though it's a closer call than many intellectual property skeptics have claimed. Here, I should note that some colleagues and I contributed to an amicus curiae brief to the Court urging the justices to find the patents invalid. Even so, the decision raises several new questions about scientific innovation. And it may be worth reconsidering the structure of our patent laws or finding another way to incentivize the very important research work that could become less common in the absence of market exclusivity for these kinds of discoveries. > Read the full story on Medicalprogresstoday.com
> Interview Greg Conko