I would answer my colleague with reference to the law as it currently affects every industry but one. The court would determine damages on the basis of lost sales or profits, the length of time expired, and the multitude of other facts which leave the court uniquely suited to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis. I believe that was the compelling logic behind adoption of the GATT language in this respect, and I feel it should be equally compelling for this single, rogue industry. I would again emphasize that we are not changing the GATT or URAA language as it relates to substantial investment. We are keeping it. We are applying this language to the drug companies, just as it applies to every other company, every other industry, and every other business entity in our country.
William Pryor: “I would answer my colleague with reference to the law as it currently affects every industry but one. The court would…”
On the recordJune 20, 1996
Said by
William Pryor
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the application of GATT language to the pharmaceutical industry.
Share
More from William Pryor
Mar 6, 2008
No. First, the CPSC Reform Act bans lead in children's products beyond trace amounts. Under section 22, any children's product that contains lead ``shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances…
Apr 9, 2013
In fact, in many cases they would go to prison, which I often described as a 'graduate school for criminal activity.'
May 17, 2005
As a former State attorney general and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, I have significant concerns with this approach. I believe the amendment proposes a…