Then, going with your gut isn’t always best (despite what President Donald Trump may tell you). Writer Steven Johnson says making better decisions can be as simple as considering multiple options instead of focusing on the “should I” or “shouldn’t I.” He’s also got anecdotes about Darwin’s marital deliberations, machine learning, and the call to storm the fortress in which Osama Bin Laden (“probably,” Americans figured) was ensconced. Johnson is the author of Farsighted: How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most.
In the Spiel, pronouncing people’s names correctly.
On December 4, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. This case arose out of a dispute over the validity of a patent covering a product used to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. At issue in this case is whether agreements entered into by Helsinn more than one year prior to filing for patent protection put the invention “on sale” and thus would invalidate the patent. Although the meaning of “on sale” in the Patent Act was long believed to be settled, the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) made changes to the statutory provisions that include the “on sale” bar. The question for the Supreme Court is whether these changes to the statute change the previous understanding of the term “on sale.” In April 2001, Helsinn entered into two agreements with MGI Pharma. Although these agreements were announced in a press release, specific information about the products, like dosing formulations, were omitted. In 2003, Helsinn filed a provisional patent application covering the product. Three patents arose from this provisional patent application prior to the enactment of the AIA; however, one patent was subject to the new provisions of the AIA. In 2011, Teva sought FDA approval to make a generic version of the patented product. Helsinn sued Teva for patent infringement based on this ANDA filing. Teva argued that the patent was invalid because Helsinn’s agreements with MGI put the product “on sale” before the relevant date. The district court rejected Teva’s argument, concluding that the AIA had changed the meaning of “on sale” to require the invention be made public by the sale. Because the dosing information was not provided in the press release regarding the agreements, the district court concluded the agreements did not make the invention public and there was no “on sale” bar. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that inventions are made available to the public whenever there is a commercial offer for sale and that the sale is public even when the details of the invention are not disclosed to the public by the sale. Thus, the “on sale” bar applied to Helsinn’s patent. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether under the AIA, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. To the discuss the case, we have Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law at University of Richmond School of Law.
Loving someone who doesn’t love you in return makes us feel wretched – can science explain why we must suffer? Parental love makes perfect evolutionary sense but romance just seems to have it in for us time after time. CrowdScience listener Leja wants to know why we fall in and out of love.
Marnie Chesterton discovers the irrational things, the impulsive things and the financially ruinous things BBC World Service listeners have done in the name of love and meet the rapper who turned herself into a science subject in an effort to flush out thoughts of her ex-boyfriend.
We delve into our ancestral past and into our brains to find out why romantic love is so central to the human experience.
Presenter: Marnie Chesterton
Producer: Louisa Field
(Image: A loving couple hugging each other, the woman holding a rose. Credit: Getty Images)
The Human Freedom Index continues to show the strong relationship between economic freedom and political and social freedom. Ian Vasquez discusses the latest edition of the report.
The Human Freedom Index continues to show the strong relationship between economic freedom and political and social freedom. Ian Vasquez discusses the latest edition of the report.
Amanda Holmes reads Gwendolyn Brooks’s poem, “To Be in Love.” Have a suggestion for a poem? Email us: podcast@theamericanscholar.org. If we select your entry, you’ll win a copy of a poetry collection edited by David Lehman.
This episode was produced by Stephanie Bastek and features the song “Canvasback” by Chad Crouch.
Following an explosive report alleging anti-Semitism and curious financial decisions from the Women's March leadership, we break down what this means. Plus: Ginny Montalbano sits down with a female small business owner whose family lived under socialism in Cuba.We also cover these stories:--President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen is headed to prison, and the president is publicly distancing himself from the actions that Cohen took.--An alleged Russian agent has pleaded guilty in U.S. court to charges related to election meddling.--The White House is skipping the traditional press Christmas party this year.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at three breaking stories related to the White House: (1) the recent ruling requiring Stormy Daniels to pay Trump's attorneys' fees; (2) the sentencing of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen; and (3) most importantly, the plea deal signed by American Media, Inc. -- parent company to the National Enquirer -- to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office.
We begin by revisiting the question of whether, in fact, Stormy Daniels is still a legal genius. (Hint: she is.) But what does it mean that a court just ordered her to pay Trump nearly $300,000 -- and why could it have been much, much worse? Listen and find out.
Then it's time for a fascinating look into a non-prosecution agreement reached between the Special Counsel's Office and American Media, Inc. that tell us an awful lot about where Yodel Mountain is headed.
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #105 on modifications to a contract. As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!
Appearances
None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
On The Gist, Jeff Bezos is one rich man. That doesn’t make him (and Amazon) bad for New York City.
In the interview, First Man is as much about Neil Armstrong the man as it is about Neil Armstrong the astronaut. Instead of depicting him planting a U.S. flag on the moon, screenwriter Josh Singer had him pay tribute to his deceased daughter. That ruffled some feathers, and Singer tells us why he stands by it.
