Do you think Cory Doctorow avoided mentioning that for bad faith reasons, or do you think he just didn't mention it because he didn't feel it was relevant to the story he was covering here?
I agree that it's relevant - but I don't think that means it warranted mentioning in the story.
The specific new piece of information here is that newly released documents show that McKinsey have been helping pharma companies figure out how to extend their patents.
At some point you have to stop adding extra background information to an article, otherwise it will never end!
Is McKinsey helping pharma companies to price gouge? Or is it simply advising them to take advantage of the current set of legislation in the most optimal way possible?
McKinsey is not responsible for drafting the legislation. It's simply advising what's best for its clients in the current context. I see it no different than a lawyer advising his clients to never talk to the police - simply because it is allowed by legislation. Or a tax advisor advising his clients on the best ways to minimize their taxes, which is once again enabled by the legislation.
Comments
Do you think Cory Doctorow avoided mentioning that for bad faith reasons, or do you think he just didn't mention it because he didn't feel it was relevant to the story he was covering here?
I feel like the regulatory environment that enabled such "price-gouging" is very relevant to the story he's covering.
I agree that it's relevant - but I don't think that means it warranted mentioning in the story.
The specific new piece of information here is that newly released documents show that McKinsey have been helping pharma companies figure out how to extend their patents.
At some point you have to stop adding extra background information to an article, otherwise it will never end!
Is McKinsey helping pharma companies to price gouge? Or is it simply advising them to take advantage of the current set of legislation in the most optimal way possible?
McKinsey is not responsible for drafting the legislation. It's simply advising what's best for its clients in the current context. I see it no different than a lawyer advising his clients to never talk to the police - simply because it is allowed by legislation. Or a tax advisor advising his clients on the best ways to minimize their taxes, which is once again enabled by the legislation.
Having read commentary of his on antitrust and economic issues, I think it’s entirely possible he just doesn’t understand.
Certainly that is the case in his commentary on economics.