Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Blaming "lazy old people" for inflation????

In a New York Times article Retirees Are One Reason the Fed Has Given Up on a Big Worker Rebound , one has a hint of "blame the old people" for inflation:

Alice Lieberman had planned to work for a few more years as a schoolteacher before the pandemic hit, but the transition to hybrid instruction did not come easily for her. She retired in summer 2021. Her husband, Howard Lieberman, started to wind down his consulting business around the same time. If Alice Lieberman was done working, Howard Lieberman wanted to be free, too, so that the pair could take camping trips and volunteer. The Liebermans, both 69, are one example of a trend that is quietly reworking the fabric of the American labor force. A wave of baby boomers has recently aged past 65. Unlike older Americans who, in the decade after the Great Recession, delayed their retirements to earn a little bit of extra money and patch up tenuous finances, many today are leaving the job market and staying out.

That has big implications for the economy, because it is contributing to a labor shortage that policymakers worry is keeping wages and inflation stubbornly elevated. That could force the Federal Reserve to raise rates more than it otherwise would, risking a recession.

The impact is 3.5 million "missing" workers:

About 3.5 million people are missing from the labor force, compared with what one might have expected based on pre-2020 trends, Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said during a speech last month. Pandemic deaths and slower immigration explain some of that decline, but a large number of the missing workers, roughly 2 million, have simply retired. And increasingly, policymakers at the central bank and economic experts do not expect those retirees to ever go back to work. “My optimism has waned,” said Wendy Edelberg, director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. “We’re now talking about people who have reorganized their lives around not working.” Millions of Americans left or lost jobs in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic as businesses laid off employees, schools closed and workers stayed home.

Old people are responsible for 900,000 of the missing

Among those 65 and older, on the other hand, participation lags well below its pre-pandemic level, the equivalent of a decline of about 900,000 people. [about 26% of the 3.5 million]

Thursday, December 22, 2022

Genentech v. Sandoz' Genentech loses appeal

The outcome:

Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc. (collectively, “Genentech”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that: (1) the claims of its Liver Function Test (“LFT”) patents1 are unpatentable as obvious, (2) sale of Sandoz Inc.’s and Lek Pharmaceuticals, D.D.’s (collectively, “Sandoz’s”) generic product would not induce infringement of the LFT patents, and (3) sale of Sandoz’s generic product would not directly infringe Genentech’s Drug-Drug Interaction (“DDI”) patents.2 See Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 19-0078, 2022 WL 842957 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2022) (“Decision”). We affirm.

Genentech's arguments

With respect to obviousness, Genentech argues that the district court improperly supplied missing claim limitations, read the prior art in ways that cannot be supported based on plain meaning, and failed to make any legal or factual findings with respect to claim 9 of the ’729 patent and claim 12 of the ’462 patent. Genentech asserts that neither Azuma nor the Pirespa® label literally discloses Grade 2 elevated liver enzymes or the claimed continued treatment of patients with pirfenidone. It adds that these elements are not within the knowledge of those skilled in the art. Genentech also argues that the court’s analysis of the Pirespa® label is not entitled to deference, and should be reviewed de novo, because it involved no fact finding. Lastly, Genentech asserts that objective indicia of nonobviousness weighed in its favor because it showed skepticism regarding pirfenidone’s efficacy and safety, as well as evidence of a long-felt and unmet need of treating patients following Grade 2 AST/ALT elevations.

Per curiam affirmance, without opinion

In "Case of the Lucky Loser," [first broadcast 27 Sept. 1958]Perry Mason cites a real case on the issue of "double jeopardy." The case is on-point and controlling, but Perry loses his motion anyway. One reviewer of the episode wrote:

Perry cites a real case, State v. McDaniels, 137 Cal. 192 (1902), that is right on point and controlling precedent. The judge did not have discretion. In almost all Mason episodes, the judges are dead on right in their rulings, and neither Mason nor Burger wins via a bad call. But this ruling adverse to Perry, but wrong, sets up the pivotal scene between Perry and "Evil Steve," [played by Douglas Kennedy] the Balfour family fixer, who is the embodiment of an anti-Mason. Steve wants Perry to present no defense for Ted Balfour and win on appeal, which will minimize exposure to the Balfour family and to "Evil Steve."

In ruling against Perry, the judge [played by Morris Ankrum] makes clear that he wants the appellate court, rather than the trial court, to rule on the double jeopardy issue. He is punting, knowing that Perry will get another chance, likely to win.

A different situation is presented by an appellate "per curiam affirmance," wherein the appellate court is also punting (without comment), but wherein the appellant is unlikely to get another chance.

In a brief in Howarth vs. State:

Petitioner is an 8th grade middle school drop-out. However, even Petitioner is aware enough of right or wrong, to know, the Fifth District Court may not affirm w/o opinion, a decision or ruling made by the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which on its face, fails to meet the essential requirements ofthe law.

In a post titled OH NO! NOT A PER CURIAM AFFIRMED DECISION ON MY APPEAL, Michael Muniz writes of the concept of per curiam affirmances:

Perhaps, that may be a common misconception held by the general public[52] and some Florida appellate practitioners, alike, that may not have yet recognized that the five Florida district courts of appeal, generally, are courts of last resort[53] except for a narrow classification of particular cases, including those certified to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance and certified conflict cases wherein multiple district court decisions conflict on points of law that necessitate Supreme Court resolution.[54] The late Florida appellate First DCA Judge Rawls seems to have had an enduring effect on appellate PCA common law jurisprudence.


VLX Properties, Inc. v. Southern States Util., Inc., 792 So. 2d 504, 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (en banc) (“But neither precedent (nor law of the case) should be used to institutionalize or justify error. We are no more perfect as judges than we are as individuals. We make mistakes. Neither the public nor the Bar expect us to always be right; they do expect us, however, to always be forthcoming. If it appears that we have made a mistake, we should not hesitate to correct it and, if it is still within our power to do so, we should mitigate any damage we have caused. Neither this court nor the law is served by our adhering to a previous position which we now believe to be wrong.”); Blackwell v. State, 86 So. 224, 237-38 (Fla. 1920) (Browne, C.J., dissenting) (“In such a case, as forcibly said by Chief Justice Bleckley [for the Georgia Supreme Court],… the maxim for a Supreme Court, supreme in the majesty of duty as well as in the majesty of power, is not stare decisis, but fiat justitia. Let this decision be right, whether other decisions were right or not.”).

Saturday, December 17, 2022

The American Civil War as described 50 years ago

A recent post discussed the work of Professor Nevins on the American Civil War:


Another writer of Nevins' time period was MacKinlay Kantor, whose work from "Look Magazine" (and later republished) began:

See also http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2019/12/what-does-civil-war-battle-of-shiloh.html