U.S. President Biden now supports waiving vaccine patent protections

[Surelynot]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

This is no different.  These companies did what they were asked and now exactly because they are successful you believe they should have that success taken away. 

Where did I say that?

[tlandtday]

That is not acceptable.  These companies must be held responsible for any problems with the vaccines just as they are credited with any success.

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Pfizer's posts $4.9B 1Q profit as vaccine strategy pays off

Selling vaccines during a pandemic has boosted Pfizer’s bottom line and proven that a strategy it embarked upon over a decade ago is now paying off handsomely

Again, so what.  That is what companies do. They invest, take a risk hoping that it pays off.  You would not be shedding any tears for them, if Pfizer spent a billion on vaccine research and it failed.  Again, you want them to spend the money, take the risk and then if successful take the gain away.  

 

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Who is talking about confiscating profits?

You are

 

If you take away their patent protections, that gives the right for any competitor to manufacturer the vaccine with nothing paid to whoever formulated it.  

Comrade Surelynot, 

Since you are against companies profiting from the Covid pandemic, I suggest you co-sponsor legislation calling it the Surelynot altruistic act.  It would require companies not to act out of a profit motive but only for the good of mankind.  

Since you don't think the companies who came up with the vaccines deserve to profit, why stop there?  Why should any company profit from the pandemic and responding to it.  Here are a list of companies who also profited from the pandemic.  I would suggest that given your nature you can even come up with more companies.  

 

Clorox – Profits from bleach to kill the virus

Cardinal Health for personal protective gear

GOJO Industries and others – For hand santizers
3M – for masks
Abbot and others – For Covid Test Kits

Gilliad –For Remedsivir treatment of Covid

Baxter- For medical infusion bags and tubes

Becton,Dickinson & Others – Syringes to administer vaccine

Medtronic, GE & others – For manufacturing hospital patient ventilators
UPS, Fed EX, & DHL- Transporting the vaccine and Covid related supplies
Walgreen, CVS, Rite Aid & others – For dispensing the Covid Vaccine
American, United Delta & Others – For flying the vaccine & supplies
Amazon, Walmart, Target & others – For selling masks, hand sanitizer & gloves

Now when you are done removing all the profit incentive from companies who are trying to help with the pandemic, let me know how that works out. 

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

....entirely contingent on the WWW developed by Tim Berners-Lee........the internet was a just a precursor.

That is like saying that Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone because Motorola manufactured the first cell phone.  The US military was the groundwork for what became the internet.  I notice you omitted the Velcro, Teflon, and GPS
 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 5/7/2021 at 11:03 AM, Thomas J said:

Sounds like a real communistic thing to do.  Ask private enterprise to come to assist and when they respond confiscate the fruits of their labor. 

What is next, in your mind.  Confiscating land to put up windmills because it is in the nations interest in having more wind turbines.  How about requiring Tesla to divulge all its secrets to the other car manufacturers because it is deemed important for their "national interest"  Now if you are confiscating the Covid vaccine, why stop there.  Why not require the pharmaceutical companies to divulge all of their research to their competitors because to do so would increase production, lower costs and be beneficial to the national interest.  

The confiscation of property is "Communism"  In the USA even the taking of land under the right of eminent domain requires the government pay for the taking.  As previously stated if you void the patent now, do you really believe the pharmaceutical companies will be so eager to help the next time they are called on.  The right thing to do is to establish required production numbers.  If the company has to "license" its vaccine to others to produce in order to meet those numbers then it will be able to contract with other pharma companies to meet those numbers.  If the government wants to negate the patent then just like taking of land to build a highway, school, or urban renewal project, the government should then BUY THE PATENT and then it would be free to give it away if it so chooses.  

One of the reasons that companies don't locate in countries with unstable political systems is that they fear that the rules today get changed and they can't establish what their permanent rights are.  That is exactly what you are suggesting is OK in the USA/World is to change the rules and just take what others invested their time and money on.  That breeds a mind set that "if they did it once, then why won't they come for my next vaccines, medicine, or medical device" on the premise that it is in their national interest.  So the long term effect would be a cautiousness to invest large sums of money fearing that the fruits of those would only be confiscated.  

If the government wants to give them away, it should do the right thing and pay for that.  Otherwise it should have negotiated up front to pay those companies for their efforts to find a vaccine with the agreement that the product of those efforts belonged to the government not the company. 

I guess you missed the bit about US Companies relocating to Communist China, Vietnam and elsewhere.

 

Again, I suggest you go read up on the factual history of the the US Government ignoring the intellectual property rights of individuals and businesses.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 5/7/2021 at 11:51 AM, Thomas J said:

As said what gives you and others the idea that somehow because it is deemed to be in the good of the public provides the right to confiscate another property without confiscation escapes me. 

The current system is actually worse than communism.  At least in communism the government owns everything and is responsible for investing its money and if a venture proves unsuccessful takes the loss. 

Here you have the government pleading with private pharmaceutical companies to use 'THEIR RESOURCES' to come up with a vaccine.  Some like Pfizer, Moderna, were successful.  Others like Merck were not.  So you think it is OK to say to Pfizer and Moderna well you use YOUR MONEY, TIME AND RESOURCES as we asked and now we are going to just confiscate your patent and give it away and to Merck well sorry for your losses but we do appreciate your time and effort. 

In WWII the War Production Act 'confiscated" public property for the war effort.  

The Lionel toy train company started producing items for warships, including compasses.

Ford Motor Company produced B-24 Liberator bombers. 

Alcoa, the aluminum company, produced airplanes.

The Mattatuck Manufacturing Company, which had made upholstery nails, switched to making cartridge clips for Springfield rifles.

Would it have been OK for them to expect that the companies were not paid?  After all it was a world crisis.  

The changing of laws to suit the aims of government means there are no laws.  That is a a banana republic where businesses shy away from because they can not count on anything being permanent.  One thing is for sure, if the patents do get vacated the next time there is a world crisis the pharmaceutical companies will be loathe to invest their money, time and effort for a solution knowing that it the end, even if successful they will lose the asset they created.  Nice Outcome. 

“
The changing of laws to suit the aims of government means there are no laws. “

 

Please tell me you were coerced into making that statement.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/6/2021 at 4:17 PM, cmarshall said:

During the campaign Biden promised to waive patents on vaccines and now his fulfilling that promise.  What a difference!

1/ Does he have the legal right to do that?

 

2/ Is the federal government going to use taxpayer $ to compensate the companies for the possibly billions of $ they will lose?

Edited May 10, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Credo]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

1/ Does he have the legal right to do that?

 

2/ Is the federal government going to use taxpayer $ to compensate the companies for the possibly billions of $ they will lose?

Yes, the gov't has the right and the government has already paid the companies billions of dollars.   

Be aware that some countries, such as India, already have the right in their laws to break patents in the event of a public health emergency.   The problem for many of the medications that simply have the patent broken is that they have the ingredients, but they don't necessarily know the exact process to make the medication.   

 

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

1/ Does he have the legal right to do that?

If he does not have the legal right to do that, obvious he wont be able to do it, and this conversation would be moot. 

But I think the white House might employ a lawyer or two , and before they decided to make such proposal they might have asked them if they had the power to do so.

[cmarshall]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess you missed the bit about US Companies relocating to Communist China, Vietnam and elsewhere.

 

Again, I suggest you go read up on the factual history of the the US Government ignoring the intellectual property rights of individuals and businesses.

 

The US was a late signatory to the Geneva Convention on copyright protection, which was the work of France and Germany.  That's the reason that the only place to hear Wagner's operas outside of Bayreuth in the 19th century was at the Metropolitan Opera in New York which cheerfully ignored Wagner's copyright.

 

The US which has for a long time been a free trade advocate was in the early days of the Republic fiercely protectionist.  Alexander Hamilton coined the phrase "infant industry" as part of his promotion of tariffs to protect developing US industry against competition with British companies which were at the time the most highly developed.  Hamilton's protectionist strategies did foster development of American industries, but did so at the expense of the agricultural sector which was forced to pay a premium for American manufactures or else pay the tariffs on British goods.  That the reason that the first secession crisis by South Carolina in 1832 was over tariffs, not slavery.

 

You have to laugh at modern US sanctimony over intellectual property and free trade.

[cmarshall]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

1/ Does he have the legal right to do that?

 

2/ Is the federal government going to use taxpayer $ to compensate the companies for the possibly billions of $ they will lose?

 

At the start of WWII FDR set up the War Production Board, which included industrial leaders and military people, who directed the US economy.  Production of automobiles was halted completely and the factories of Ford, GM, and the others turned over to producing tanks, planes, etc.  Industry was objecting since their profits soared during the war, but they couldn't have said no if they had wanted to.  

 

After the war the practiced was legislated in the Defense Production Act which enables the president to seize companies for reasons of national security.  

 

So, yes, suspending the patents would be legal, but the companies involved will likely not object for PR reasons.

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess you missed the bit about US Companies relocating to Communist China, Vietnam and elsewhere.

 

Chomper Higgot

Perhaps they are treated with a greater degree of protection in Communist China and Vietnam.   I am not saying that corporations are saints or that capitalism does not have its faults.  However, it is the second worst form of commerce with all the others being the worst. 

Also, calling China or Vietnam communist may be a bit of an overstatement.  I have been to both countries.  China in particular incents businesses to come there, expand and its rate of taxation is very modest.  China gained a stunning 239 billionaires since March 2020, bringing its total to 626.  Saying that any country that allowed for the creation of even 1 billionaire proves it is not communistic let alone 239.  

The fact remains, business does what is good for business and goes where it is best for business.  When you devise a system where it allows Merck to invest millions and come up with nothing for a Covid vaccine and say well that is too bad, but confiscate the patent of Pfizer when it does is construction a heads you lose, tails I win situation.  The company can never see a way to make a profit so it just slow walk any true efforts to develop cures.  Making things like consistent law, patent protection etc is a major reason why companies do business in the USA.  They know what the rules are.  If those certainties of doing business in the USA are removed, then why not have your company located in Mexico, Columbia, Panama etc.  The costs are lower and you deal with the vagaries of whose in power in those countries too. 

 

[Surelynot]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Chomper Higgot

Perhaps they are treated with a greater degree of protection in Communist China and Vietnam.   I am not saying that corporations are saints or that capitalism does not have its faults.  However, it is the second worst form of commerce with all the others being the worst. 

Also, calling China or Vietnam communist may be a bit of an overstatement.  I have been to both countries.  China in particular incents businesses to come there, expand and its rate of taxation is very modest.  China gained a stunning 239 billionaires since March 2020, bringing its total to 626.  Saying that any country that allowed for the creation of even 1 billionaire proves it is not communistic let alone 239.  

The fact remains, business does what is good for business and goes where it is best for business.  When you devise a system where it allows Merck to invest millions and come up with nothing for a Covid vaccine and say well that is too bad, but confiscate the patent of Pfizer when it does is construction a heads you lose, tails I win situation.  The company can never see a way to make a profit so it just slow walk any true efforts to develop cures.  Making things like consistent law, patent protection etc is a major reason why companies do business in the USA.  They know what the rules are.  If those certainties of doing business in the USA are removed, then why not have your company located in Mexico, Columbia, Panama etc.  The costs are lower and you deal with the vagaries of whose in power in those countries too. 

 

The vaccine brought in $3.5 billion in revenue in the first three months of this year, nearly a quarter of its total revenue, Pfizer reported. The vaccine was, far and away, Pfizer’s biggest source of revenue.

The company did not disclose the profits it derived from the vaccine, but it reiterated its previous prediction that its profit margins on the vaccine would be in the high 20 percent range.

 

Moderna Inc. MRNA, +1.65% brought in $1.7 billion in sales of its COVID-19 vaccine in the first quarter of 2021, marking the company's first significant billion-dollar revenue haul this year and also the first time it's ever reported a GAAP profit.

 

Having it tough at the minute................making billions out of human misery........my heart goes out to them.

[Thomas J]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please tell me you were coerced into making that statement.

No I was not coerced.  It is no different than the issue of illegal immigration.  There are immigration laws.  If you get to pick and choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore means you have no laws.  There is patent protection in the USA.  That is either a protection given to a company for its invention or if can be just stripped away at will, it is not a protection.  

If you are a nation of laws and want businesses to have the confidence of doing business in that country the country should honor the laws it has.  If you do not want to provide patent protections to pharmaceutical companies then you should not present to them that they exist and any medicine should be open source.  

If the government is going to strip away the patent protection for Covid why stop there.  Why not require pharmaceutical companies to just spend their money, time, and efforts to develop medicines and then make all of them available to their competitors for the "common good"

While you are at it, why not make the hospitals treat their patients for cost, doctors to treat them for minimum wage, the pharmacies distribute drugs at cost, after all why should anyone make a profit. 

 

[Surelynot]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

why not make the hospitals treat their patients for cost, doctors to treat them for minimum wage, the pharmacies distribute drugs at cost, after all why should anyone make a profit. 

Yes indeed why?....when you could instead have the one of the worst health care systems in the world for anyone who isn't in a position to enjoy insurance or excessive wealth.........I know which health system I would prefer between the US and the UK.

[Surelynot]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The changing of laws to suit the aims of government means there are no laws. 

That is why you need a true democracy so governments that changes laws you don't like can be voted out.......thank God it worked (just) in the US last year.

 

Sorry Chomper......not your quote!!!!

Edited May 10, 2021 by Surelynot

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Having it tough at the minute................making billions out of human misery........my heart goes out to them.

You are indeed a communist.  SO WHAT THAT THEY MADE A PROFIT. 

Would you be happier if Pfizer invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research and came up with nothing?

Somehow you have been brainwashed into thinking that business operates out of a sense of altruism.  It does not.  The fact that it makes a profit encourages others to similarly expend their time and effort seeing that they too might make a profit. 

As an aside Biden's comment alone sent the value of Pfizer to plunge by approximately $4.3 billion in one day. So that that is their "reward" for their effort that came up with a cure.  

As I previously mentioned, why should you stop with just the Covid 19 vaccine,  Why don't you make every drug company share all of their medicines with others.  Why don't you stop the hospitals from charging for patients, doctors from charging for patients, pharmacies from doing anything more than selling covid vaccine 

Now when you are done stripping all the profits out of inventing new medicines and providing medical care I can assure you, that you will receive exactly the quality of medical care you deserve. 

Now as an aside, Pfizer has 5.8 billion shares outstanding. The day Biden said that he was considering removing the protection Pfizer stock lost 1.95% of its value 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You are indeed a communist.  SO WHAT THAT THEY MADE A PROFIT. 

Would you be happier if Pfizer invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research and came up with nothing?

Somehow you have been brainwashed into thinking that business operates out of a sense of altruism.  It does not.  The fact that it makes a profit encourages others to similarly expend their time and effort seeing that they too might make a profit. 

As an aside Biden's comment alone sent the value of Pfizer to plunge by approximately $4.3 billion in one day. So that that is their "reward" for their effort that came up with a cure.  

As I previously mentioned, why should you stop with just the Covid 19 vaccine,  Why don't you make every drug company share all of their medicines with others.  Why don't you stop the hospitals from charging for patients, doctors from charging for patients, pharmacies from doing anything more than selling covid vaccine 

Now when you are done stripping all the profits out of inventing new medicines and providing medical care I can assure you, that you will receive exactly the quality of medical care you deserve. 

Now as an aside, Pfizer has 5.8 billion shares outstanding. The day Biden said that he was considering removing the protection Pfizer stock lost 1.95% of its value 

 

Calm down comrade, calm down.

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No I was not coerced.  It is no different than the issue of illegal immigration.  There are immigration laws.  If you get to pick and choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore means you have no laws.  There is patent protection in the USA.  That is either a protection given to a company for its invention or if can be just stripped away at will, it is not a protection.  

If you are a nation of laws and want businesses to have the confidence of doing business in that country the country should honor the laws it has.  If you do not want to provide patent protections to pharmaceutical companies then you should not present to them that they exist and any medicine should be open source.  

If the government is going to strip away the patent protection for Covid why stop there.  Why not require pharmaceutical companies to just spend their money, time, and efforts to develop medicines and then make all of them available to their competitors for the "common good"

While you are at it, why not make the hospitals treat their patients for cost, doctors to treat them for minimum wage, the pharmacies distribute drugs at cost, after all why should anyone make a profit. 

So, I guess you're against the reduction in taxes that passed in 2017? Of course, what you're saying is nonsense. Laws are changed all the time. President Biden lawfully supports suspending patent protection. Comparing this to illegal immigration is nonsense.

Patent protection is proposed to be stripped in the case of Covid because it's an emergency situation. In case you haven't heard there's a pandemic out there. And as long as it's out there it poses a threat to everyone.

And big Pharma has already profited immensely. It's not being proposed that the developed economies suspend patent protections locally. Just for those parts of the world where the cost is just too high. Get back to us about the threat posed by this particular suspension when Big Pharma gets stripped of it's patents on acne medication.

As for this being a disincentive the next time a pandemic comes around...Big Pharma has already profited hugely. Ya think they're going to turn down a chance to profit hugely again? Clearly you don't understand the free market system.

[Thomas J]

27 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Calm down comrade, calm down.

No I am not your comrade.  It is obvious however that your mindset is that society operates for the benefit of the common good.  While that siren sound has been preached for many decades, history has shown the countries where it has been tried are exactly the countries where the masses of people are the worst off. 

I suggest you read about the results from "collectivism" were for the Pilgrims in the USA and of course the Russians following the Russian revolution.  Surprise, surprise, people knowing that they got nothing more by working hard than anyone else, stopped working hard and everyone starved. 

You may not like the motives of capitalism since some call it "greed" however it is each party operating for their "own self interest"  The business person invests his/her money time and effort not to provide jobs, or benefit society but to make a profit.  Now the only way they can do that is to provide "something of benefit" to others.  Cars, clothing, medicines, machinery equipment, legal services etc.  On the other side are consumers who care not about the company but getting the "most for themselves at the least cost"   They will pit one provider over another to get the most for the least.  It is that system as ugly as it is that is "effective"  

Remove the incentive for the business person to make a profit and the only thing you have guaranteed is shortages.  If the companies that provided medical equipment, protective gear, medicines and vaccines are given no profit motive to produce, THEY WONT

I honestly don't know why you and other liberals complain about companies and people making a profit anyway.  Through taxation a large portion of it is confiscated anyway.  Take Pfizer, it will pay 20% of any profits to the US government in income taxes and then if they distribute those same profits to their shareholders they will pay income taxes on those of up to another 37% in just Federal Income taxes and more if those shareholders live in a state with income tax. 

Now after all why should any of those drug companies make a profit.  After all they might do foolish things with it, like invest in drug research to cure cancer, HIV, Parkinson's or Alzheimers.  No you would cut off their source of capital and when those cures just don't happen, blame them for their lack of effort. 

Sorry, profit is a good thing.  If Merck see Phizer making a profit it is encouraged to make a competing product.  If Astra Zeneca makes a profit Abbot is encouraged to come up with a competing product.  Remove the profit motive and then why try?  Aftercall your reward for being successful is to have the government just negate any profits for the risk you took.  Calm down comrade, calm down.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Thomas J

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I honestly don't know why you and other liberals complain about companies and people making a profit anyw

Never have and never will

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It is obvious however that your mindset is that society operates for the benefit of the common good.

Like in the UK and most of Europe you mean?

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Never have and never will

Well your comments show you have an uncanny ability to disguise that.  I guess it is only certain profits you hate. 

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Now after all why should any of those drug companies make a profit.

They don't.....there are plenty of areas they could research and develop drugs for, but they don't because they won't make a profit.......the very reason the >UK government is now looking at proposals to underwrite research in these areas as they did to ensure the AZ vaccine was developed.......

[Surelynot]

7 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sorry, profit is a good thing.

Couldn't agree more.

[Surelynot]

7 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Calm down comrade, calm down.

????

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Like in the UK and most of Europe you mean?

If you are talking about Capitalism as far as I see the UK and most of Europe still somewhat Capitalistic although they are certainly trending towards Democratic Socialism.  If you are talking about socialized medicine, I personally find it to be a failure.   You have a huge government bureaucracy set up that increases costs, and reduces the quality of care to reign in the huge expense. 

There is nothing more wasted in this world than something "when it is free"  

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If you are talking about Capitalism as far as I see the UK and most of Europe still somewhat Capitalistic although they are certainly trending towards Democratic Socialism.  If you are talking about socialized medicine, I personally find it to be a failure.   You have a huge government bureaucracy set up that increases costs, and reduces the quality of care to reign in the huge expense. 

There is nothing more wasted in this world than something "when it is free"  

Yep.......... the NHS.......people all over the world laugh at our NHS and say thank god we don't have a system like that.

[Thomas J]

9 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

They don't.....there are plenty of areas they could research and develop drugs for, but they don't because they won't make a profit..

Thank you for making my point.  WHEN DRUG COMPANIES OR ANY COMPANY CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT they don't put forth any effort.  That is why if you remove the patent protection from the Covid vaccines you are guaranteeing that in the future they won't respond just as they don't with new anti-biotics because they can't make any money on them. 

As for laws changing all the time. Yes they do but not retroactively.  If the law did not provide for patent protection for those companies who invested their time on developing a Covid vaccine but they chose to do so anyway, then that is fine.  However, you don't change a law retroactively.  They were given a patent for their discovery.  To now revoke that patent is nothing less than confiscation of private property without compensation.