<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel> 

	<title>Comments on: Comments on 7109</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/7109//</link>
	<description>Comments on MetaFilter post Comments on 7109</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:36:00 -0800</pubDate>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:36:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>

	<item>
		<title>Post number 7109</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/7109/</link>	
		<description>&lt;a href="http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAPR30FQLC.html"&gt;Drug companies drop AIDS drugs lawsuit against South Africa.&lt;/a&gt; Shamed into it, of course. Paid legal costs too. Perhaps a significant precedent?</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">post:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.7109</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 04:41:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>aflakete</dc:creator>		<category>SouthAfrica</category>		<category>lawsuit</category>		<category>pharmaceuticals</category>		<category>drugs</category>		<category>medications</category>		<category>AIDS</category>		<category>HIV</category>		<category>brokenlink</category>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: bliss322</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/7109/#70626</link>	
		<description>From &lt;a href=&quot;www.npr.com&quot;&gt;NPR&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;i&gt;Under the deal, the pharmaceuticals industry acknowledges South Africa&apos;s right to enact laws to broaden access to medicines. A spokeswoman for the drug industry says &lt;b&gt;the government agrees to consult companies when it drafts regulations to implement the law&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;/i&gt;  The original article aflakete links to also mentions that the government isn&apos;t actually prepared to start importing drugs.  so, while, sure, it can be called a victory; it can also be a case of the drug companies realizing that this battle isn&apos;t over; and, why ruin their public image when they can simply be on the advisory board?

or, i could just be pessmistic about this.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.7109-70626</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:36:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>bliss322</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: gyc</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/7109/#70948</link>	
		<description>And that&apos;s how it should be... It&apos;s an example of how an ideal free market would work. Companies rely on the public for their profits and if enough of the public gets mad at the company&apos;s behavior, more likely than not companies *will* back down to lessen their bad publicity.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.7109-70948</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:37:17 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gyc</dc:creator>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
