Legal Thought of the Day, No. 11

In the case of “our” hypothetical pharmacist, he may now presumably advertise not only the prices of prescription drugs, but may attempt to energetically promote their sale so long as he does so truthfully. Quite consistently with Virginia law requiring prescription drugs to be available only through a physician, “our” pharmacist might run any of the following representative advertisements in a local newspaper:

Pain getting you down? Insist that your physician prescribe Demerol. You pay a little more than for aspirin, but you get a lot more relief.

Can’t shake the flu? Get a prescription for Tetracycline from your doctor today.

Don’t spend another sleepless night. Ask your doctor to prescribe Seconal without delay.

Unless the State can show that these advertisements are either actually untruthful or misleading, it presumably is not free to restrict in any way commercial efforts on the part of those who profit from the sale of prescription drugs to put them in the widest possible circulation. But such a line simply makes no allowance whatever for what appears to have been a considered legislative judgment in most States that, while prescription drugs are a necessary and vital part of medical care and treatment, there are sufficient dangers attending their widespread use that they simply may not be promoted in the same manner as hair creams, deodorants, and toothpaste. The very real dangers that general advertising for such drug might create in terms of encouraging, even though not sanctioning, illicit use of them by individuals for whom they have not been prescribed, or by generating patient pressure upon physicians to prescribe them, are simply not dealt with in the Court’s opinion. If prescription drugs may be advertised, they may be advertised on television during family viewing time. Nothing we know about the acquisitive instincts of those who inhabit every business and profession to a greater or lesser extent gives any reason to think that such persons will not do everything they can to generate demand for these products in much the same manner and to much the same degree as demand for other commodities has been generated.

~U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, dissenting.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
425 U.S. 748, 789 (1976)

Legal Thought of the Day, No. 10: “Laptop” Computers

“The [4,571,456] patent, entitled ‘Portable Computer,’ was issued to David C. Paulsen et al., on February 18, 1986. The claims of the patent are directed to a portable computer contained within a compact metal case. A salient feature of the claimed invention is its ‘clam shell’ configuration, in which the computer’s display housing is connected to the computer at its midsection by a hinge assembly that enables the display to swing from a closed, latched position for portability and protection to an open, erect position for viewing and operation. Computers with this design are commonly referred to as ‘laptop’ computers.”

~Circuit Judge Lourie,
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed.Cir.1994).

Lourie went on to affirm the Patent Office’s rejection of the patent application detailing the design of the so-called ‘laptop’ computer. Upon requests to re-examine the patent, it was discovered that the design was not new. It had been preceded by a Japanese inventor named Yokoyama, who used it in making a desktop calculator.

Legal Thought of the Day: No. 9

It was proved, unanswerably, on the trial, that Amos Gridley, a witness offered by the defendant, had, deliberately, within three months of the trial, declared his disbelief in a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments; that he had said, man was like a beast, and when he died, there was an end of him.