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

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Thomas J said:

However I am a staunch advocate of the marketplace.  I can not think of one single example of when a government program has ever run efficiently or cost effectively.   

Here's an example for you straight from the USA:

https://acasignups.net/21/05/10/kff-why-hospitals-are-so-strongly-opposed-lowering-medicare-age-one-chart

 

You'll notice that it costs more to treat 60-64 year olds in the private sector than it does to treat 70-74 year olds enrolled in Medicare. And it costs more to treat 50-59 year olds in the private sector than it does to treat 65-69 year olds enrolled in Medicare.

[Credo]

Some of our fervent capitalists the @Thomas Jfail to understand that these large pharmaceutical companies do not fund or discover most of the drugs that hit the market.   Many of the developments and discoveries are made at University research centers.   

 

Their level of morality is far outstripped by the profit motive.   You might want to have a little read on the matter:  

https://www.statnews.com/2019/12/10/large-pharma-companies-provide-little-new-drug-development-innovation/

 

And here's more on the role of Academia:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948567/

Edited May 10, 2021 by Credo

[Thomas J]

9 hours ago, Credo said:

Some of our fervent capitalists the @Thomas Jfail to understand that these large pharmaceutical companies do not fund or discover most of the drugs that hit the market.   Many of the developments and discoveries are made at University research centers.

Perhaps you should study the law.  Patents are granted for “inventions” that a company makes to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by competitors.  The fact that some medicines are discovered by universities is just empty dribble you threw in to muddle the issue.  We are talking specifically about the vaccines THE COMPANIES DEVELOPED FOR COVID. The pharmaceutical companies get patent protections ON THEIR DISOVERIES. 

Now patent protection is ‘A LAW”  It provides companies with a safeguard that they will not expend their energies making advancements only to have the fruits of their labor stolen.  Now you may not like patent protection.  If that is the case then you should lobby to prevent it IN THE FUTURE, not strip it away retroactively.  Those companies operated on the basis that if they marshalled the resources of their companies to find a cure AND WERE SUCCESSFUL, they would be granted patent protection.  Though many companies embarked on finding a cure and spent billions of dollars, only a few were successful.  These companies followed THE LAW and the government granted them a patent.  To now strip that patent away strictly because it is “politically popular” is nothing less that government confiscation of an asset without compensation.  Again, if you don’t like the patent law, then change it but what you are advocating is to void law when you believe it is advantageous to do so.

Now, with Pfizer, you can get 2 shots for approximately $30 to $40 total.  Johnson & Johnson cost about $10 for 1 shot.  Wow what a rip off for life saving drugs.  The company invents the product, pays to manufacturer it, packages it, ships it, and inoculates you for that cost.  Oh and by the way, if there are any negative side effects it will be liable for any injury.

The communists confiscated property in Russia following the revolution to give it to others in the “public good” Cuba following its revelation confiscated private property making it owned by the state and redistributed some of it. What is being proposed is literally no different.  It is a taking of a private asset by the state redistributing its benefits “for the public good”  that essentially puts the pharmaceutical companies in a lose/lose situation.  Spend their money, time and effort and if successful have their drug made open source.  Spend their money and come up with no marketable drug and shrug, oh too bad.

Your complaint can be only about two things.  The company making a profit to which I say SO WHAT.  The government will confiscate a portion of that through taxes anyway and as mentioned having a company potentially save your life for as little as $10 and then bitching about it when they can still make a profit at ridiculously low price is more than petty. 

Now if it about making sure that there is adequate supply, I say “maybe”  If it is determined that the originators of the drugs can not ramp up fast enough to meet required supplies, then coordinate and mandate that they license their vaccine to other manufacturers.  They could then at least make a profit for their risk via licensing fees.  Instead you just want to confiscate it away from those that were successful and leave those who spent millions but were failures just blow in the wind.  Very Nice.  While you are at it, take all the profits away from the hospitals, doctors, ventilator companies, Person Protection Gear manufacturers/supplier, hospital supply companies, logistic companies and others who may be making a profit from responding to the pandemic.  Why stop at fleecing only the drug companies.

Just be careful for what you wish for because it might come true and don’t be surprised when the next pandemic hits and the public is pleading for a cure and the drug companies say well the last time, those who did nothing to invent a cure ended up the same as those who did, so I think I will just sit this one out this time.




 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Perhaps you should study the law.  Patents are granted for “inventions” that a company makes to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by competitors.  The fact that some medicines are discovered by universities is just empty dribble you threw in to muddle the issue.  We are talking specifically about the vaccines THE COMPANIES DEVELOPED FOR COVID. The pharmaceutical companies get patent protections ON THEIR DISOVERIES. 

Now patent protection is ‘A LAW”  It provides companies with a safeguard that they will not expend their energies making advancements only to have the fruits of their labor stolen.  Now you may not like patent protection.  If that is the case then you should lobby to prevent it IN THE FUTURE, not strip it away retroactively.  Those companies operated on the basis that if they marshalled the resources of their companies to find a cure AND WERE SUCCESSFUL, they would be granted patent protection.  Though many companies embarked on finding a cure and spent billions of dollars, only a few were successful.  These companies followed THE LAW and the government granted them a patent.  To now strip that patent away strictly because it is “politically popular” is nothing less that government confiscation of an asset without compensation.  Again, if you don’t like the patent law, then change it but what you are advocating is to void law when you believe it is advantageous to do so.

Now, with Pfizer, you can get 2 shots for approximately $30 to $40 total.  Johnson & Johnson cost about $10 for 1 shot.  Wow what a rip off for life saving drugs.  The company invents the product, pays to manufacturer it, packages it, ships it, and inoculates you for that cost.  Oh and by the way, if there are any negative side effects it will be liable for any injury.

The communists confiscated property in Russia following the revolution to give it to others in the “public good” Cuba following its revelation confiscated private property making it owned by the state and redistributed some of it. What is being proposed is literally no different.  It is a taking of a private asset by the state redistributing its benefits “for the public good”  that essentially puts the pharmaceutical companies in a lose/lose situation.  Spend their money, time and effort and if successful have their drug made open source.  Spend their money and come up with no marketable drug and shrug, oh too bad.

Your complaint can be only about two things.  The company making a profit to which I say SO WHAT.  The government will confiscate a portion of that through taxes anyway and as mentioned having a company potentially save your life for as little as $10 and then bitching about it when they can still make a profit at ridiculously low price is more than petty. 

Now if it about making sure that there is adequate supply, I say “maybe”  If it is determined that the originators of the drugs can not ramp up fast enough to meet required supplies, then coordinate and mandate that they license their vaccine to other manufacturers.  They could then at least make a profit for their risk via licensing fees.  Instead you just want to confiscate it away from those that were successful and leave those who spent millions but were failures just blow in the wind.  Very Nice.  While you are at it, take all the profits away from the hospitals, doctors, ventilator companies, Person Protection Gear manufacturers/supplier, hospital supply companies, logistic companies and others who may be making a profit from responding to the pandemic.  Why stop at fleecing only the drug companies.

Just be careful for what you wish for because it might come true and don’t be surprised when the next pandemic hits and the public is pleading for a cure and the drug companies say well the last time, those who did nothing to invent a cure ended up the same as those who did, so I think I will just sit this one out this time.




 

So much nonsense here but the fact remains that the vaccine manufacturers have profited mightily and will profit mightily  again should a similar pandemic arise.  And the President has the lawful power to suspend patent protection during an emergency.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/10/2021 at 11:37 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

2. Removing the patent protection will not prevent the companies continuing to make a profit.

Given that new vaccines will likely be need every year ( just like the flu ) IMO the main profit will be realised in the future, but only as long as they retain the patent.

 

All that Biden is doing, IMO, is ensuring that drug companies will not comply in any future pandemic, without cast iron guarantees on patent rights.

[Thomas J]

If Biden accomplished anything with this communistic confiscation statement he guaranteed that drug companies will stop searching for better vaccines or a cure for Covid 19.  They will have to view their efforts as flushing money down a hole coming up with a vaccine or cure only to have whatever they discover given to the public domain. 

There are many here on TV who find the profits unconscionable and believe patent protections should be ripped away.  One thing they are totally misguided with is that those companies who are selling their vaccines and making a profit is that vaccine will remain profitable.  

When Pfizer came out with Viagra it was the only company with a drug for impotence.  Soon after drugs such as Levitra, Cialas, and Stendra cut away its market share.  The profits from a drug are much like the career of a professional athlete, short lived.   Assuming that another drug company announces and releases a new, and better Covid 19 vaccine or better yet a medicine that cures it, all of those drugs companies will substantially or totally lose any profits from their existing drug.  

[placeholder]

On 5/12/2021 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J said:

If Biden accomplished anything with this communistic confiscation statement he guaranteed that drug companies will stop searching for better vaccines or a cure for Covid 19.  They will have to view their efforts as flushing money down a hole coming up with a vaccine or cure only to have whatever they discover given to the public domain. 

There are many here on TV who find the profits unconscionable and believe patent protections should be ripped away.  One thing they are totally misguided with is that those companies who are selling their vaccines and making a profit is that vaccine will remain profitable.  

When Pfizer came out with Viagra it was the only company with a drug for impotence.  Soon after drugs such as Levitra, Cialas, and Stendra cut away its market share.  The profits from a drug are much like the career of a professional athlete, short lived.   Assuming that another drug company announces and releases a new, and better Covid 19 vaccine or better yet a medicine that cures it, all of those drugs companies will substantially or totally lose any profits from their existing drug.  

Nonsense. Big Pharma has made plenty and will make plenty more selling to the developed world. Ya think pharmacies are going to turn down all that cash the next time a pandemic rolls around out of some sort of principle?

[placeholder]

On 5/12/2021 at 9:56 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that new vaccines will likely be need every year ( just like the flu ) IMO the main profit will be realised in the future, but only as long as they retain the patent.

 

All that Biden is doing, IMO, is ensuring that drug companies will not comply in any future pandemic, without cast iron guarantees on patent rights.

Do you understand that the lifting of the patent only applies to the less developed nations?

[rabas]

On 5/11/2021 at 2:25 PM, Thomas J said:

Perhaps you should study the law.  Patents are granted for “inventions” that a company makes to protect their intellectual property from being stolen by competitors.  The fact that some medicines are discovered by universities is just empty dribble you threw in to muddle the issue.  We are talking specifically about the vaccines THE COMPANIES DEVELOPED FOR COVID. The pharmaceutical companies get patent protections ON THEIR DISOVERIES. 

Now patent protection is ‘A LAW”  It provides companies with a safeguard that they will not expend their energies making advancements only to have the fruits of their labor stolen.  Now you may not like patent protection.  If that is the case then you should lobby to prevent it IN THE FUTURE, not strip it away retroactively.  Those companies operated on the basis that if they marshalled the resources of their companies to find a cure AND WERE SUCCESSFUL, they would be granted patent protection.  Though many companies embarked on finding a cure and spent billions of dollars, only a few were successful.  These companies followed THE LAW and the government granted them a patent.  To now strip that patent away strictly because it is “politically popular” is nothing less that government confiscation of an asset without compensation.  Again, if you don’t like the patent law, then change it but what you are advocating is to void law when you believe it is advantageous to do so.

Now, with Pfizer, you can get 2 shots for approximately $30 to $40 total.  Johnson & Johnson cost about $10 for 1 shot.  Wow what a rip off for life saving drugs.  The company invents the product, pays to manufacturer it, packages it, ships it, and inoculates you for that cost.  Oh and by the way, if there are any negative side effects it will be liable for any injury.

The communists confiscated property in Russia following the revolution to give it to others in the “public good” Cuba following its revelation confiscated private property making it owned by the state and redistributed some of it. What is being proposed is literally no different.  It is a taking of a private asset by the state redistributing its benefits “for the public good”  that essentially puts the pharmaceutical companies in a lose/lose situation.  Spend their money, time and effort and if successful have their drug made open source.  Spend their money and come up with no marketable drug and shrug, oh too bad.

Your complaint can be only about two things.  The company making a profit to which I say SO WHAT.  The government will confiscate a portion of that through taxes anyway and as mentioned having a company potentially save your life for as little as $10 and then bitching about it when they can still make a profit at ridiculously low price is more than petty. 

Now if it about making sure that there is adequate supply, I say “maybe”  If it is determined that the originators of the drugs can not ramp up fast enough to meet required supplies, then coordinate and mandate that they license their vaccine to other manufacturers.  They could then at least make a profit for their risk via licensing fees.  Instead you just want to confiscate it away from those that were successful and leave those who spent millions but were failures just blow in the wind.  Very Nice.  While you are at it, take all the profits away from the hospitals, doctors, ventilator companies, Person Protection Gear manufacturers/supplier, hospital supply companies, logistic companies and others who may be making a profit from responding to the pandemic.  Why stop at fleecing only the drug companies.

Just be careful for what you wish for because it might come true and don’t be surprised when the next pandemic hits and the public is pleading for a cure and the drug companies say well the last time, those who did nothing to invent a cure ended up the same as those who did, so I think I will just sit this one out this time.

"Patents are granted for “inventions” that a company makes"

 

Well, no. Patents are granted to scientists, entrepreneurs, and other people who invent things. They may work for a company, a University, or themselves.  People often leave companies, invent and patent something, start a company, and then sell it to a large company.

 

Companies are businesses, as they should be, and are there for profit. Even when working for a company, patents are granted in the name of the person or people responsible for the creative (patentable) ideas.  Patent rights are often assigned to the company, but the company must pay the inventors by law.

 

Companies are important because they fund research. Without that funding, a lot of things would not exist. On the other hand, their is nothing inherently good about a company, they are involved for a profit and are capable of wrongdoing.

 

I think the primary patents for Pfizer's vaccine are in the name of a Turkish lady and an American University professor. Of course, Pfizer will have purchased certain rights in these patents.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by rabas

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

I think the primary patents for Pfizer's vaccine are in the name of a Turkish lady and an American University professor. Of course, Pfizer will have purchased certain rights in these patents.

You may have more extensive information than I have.  However, one way or another, each of those companies was told to exhaust all possible resources and efforts to find a vaccine and stop the pandemic.  Some like Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson were successful.  They applied for and were granted a patent whether that patent was one they originally applied for or one they purchased.  

To now say "retroactively" oh we lied.  We are going to strip your patent protections away and give your intellectual property to everyone even those who expended no effort to find a cure. 

Now why?  There are only two reasons:  Jealousy over the profits, to which I say so what.  Those profits may be very fleeting if yet another company comes out with an even better vaccine or better yet finds a cure.  

The only other reason is that the company who owns the patent lacks the ability to produce sufficient volumes of the vaccine.  If this is the case, mandate that the company must meet certain production quota's either directly or through cooperative efforts with other drug companies. 

By Biden's statement that he is considering stripping away the patent does guarantee one thing.  It plants the seed of doubt in all the companies that future efforts to find better therapies for the Covid vaccine might also be confiscated.  That breeds a why should I even try mindset.  That has to be true not just for Covid vaccines but now for any medicine, therapy or medical device.  If the industry believes that their right to protect their intellectual property can be retroactively stripped from them, they certainly have less guarantees therefore they are less likely to want to invest their money for future medical advances.

 

 For me, I see companies that "could gouge on prices" but they are not.  Certainly to get a single shot of Johnson & Johnson for $10 which is less than a 1 oz tube of Lamisil to kill athletes foot I find as a bargain. 


 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Thomas J

[Chomper Higgot]

On 5/12/2021 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J said:

If Biden accomplished anything with this communistic confiscation statement he guaranteed that drug companies will stop searching for better vaccines or a cure for Covid 19.  They will have to view their efforts as flushing money down a hole coming up with a vaccine or cure only to have whatever they discover given to the public domain. 

There are many here on TV who find the profits unconscionable and believe patent protections should be ripped away.  One thing they are totally misguided with is that those companies who are selling their vaccines and making a profit is that vaccine will remain profitable.  

When Pfizer came out with Viagra it was the only company with a drug for impotence.  Soon after drugs such as Levitra, Cialas, and Stendra cut away its market share.  The profits from a drug are much like the career of a professional athlete, short lived.   Assuming that another drug company announces and releases a new, and better Covid 19 vaccine or better yet a medicine that cures it, all of those drugs companies will substantially or totally lose any profits from their existing drug.  

Which is the reason why no Pharma company makes Aspirin, Paracetamol, Loratadine, Albuterol and many other drugs that are now available as genetics.

 

Or, you are making an unsubstantiated argument.

[Chomper Higgot]

28 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You may have more extensive information than I have.  However, one way or another, each of those companies was told to exhaust all possible resources and efforts to find a vaccine and stop the pandemic.  Some like Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson were successful.  They applied for and were granted a patent whether that patent was one they originally applied for or one they purchased.  

To now say "retroactively" oh we lied.  We are going to strip your patent protections away and give your intellectual property to everyone even those who expended no effort to find a cure. 

Now why?  There are only two reasons:  Jealousy over the profits, to which I say so what.  Those profits may be very fleeting if yet another company comes out with an even better vaccine or better yet finds a cure.  

The only other reason is that the company who owns the patent lacks the ability to produce sufficient volumes of the vaccine.  If this is the case, mandate that the company must meet certain production quota's either directly or through cooperative efforts with other drug companies. 

By Biden's statement that he is considering stripping away the patent does guarantee one thing.  It plants the seed of doubt in all the companies that future efforts to find better therapies for the Covid vaccine might also be confiscated.  That breeds a why should I even try mindset.  That has to be true not just for Covid vaccines but now for any medicine, therapy or medical device.  If the industry believes that their right to protect their intellectual property can be retroactively stripped from them, they certainly have less guarantees therefore they are less likely to want to invest their money for future medical advances.

 

 For me, I see companies that "could gouge on prices" but they are not.  Certainly to get a single shot of Johnson & Johnson for $10 which is less than a 1 oz tube of Lamisil to kill athletes foot I find as a bargain. 


 

There’s a third reason, but I doubt you’ll grasp it: Rule 303.

 

The vaccines are required yesterday, millions of lives are at stake, Biden has the means to hand and is taking the responsibility to act.

 

 

[Thomas J]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which is the reason why no Pharma company makes Aspirin, Paracetamol, Loratadine, Albuterol and many other drugs that are now available as genetics.

 

Or, you are making an unsubstantiated argument.

You are making an apples to oranges comparison. 

All of the drugs you mentioned WERE ONCE UNDER A PATENT.  The company who invented them got those years to reap the benefits of their investment.  Bayer patented Aspirin in 1899, Loratadine was patented in 1980,  Paracetamol, Patent 1951, Albuterol 1966,.  ALL OF THOSE COMPANIES ENJOYED THE YEARS OF PATENT PROTECTION.  None of them had their patent protection voided. 
.

The fact that they are available as generics shows that removing patent protections turns them into a drug that is a "commodity" going to the lowest cost producer.  Not to the one who invested their money to invent them. 

The patent is good only for 20 years.  Sufficient time for the company that invented the product to sell it and make a profit on what it invented.  To do otherwise means that companies who expend billions of dollars in research will find that the products that they invent are turned over to other companies who invested nothing.  They will also find that any monies invested in failed drug trials is just lost.  That puts them in a lose/lose situation.  Invest the money and have their intellectual property stripped away or invest in a losing drug trial.  

After 20 years the patent on any of the Covid Vaccine drugs will expire just like Aspirin, Paracetamol, Loratadine, Albuterol and many other drugs that are now available as genetics. and they too will go the low cost producer. 

 

[Thomas J]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The vaccines are required yesterday, millions of lives are at stake, Biden has the means to hand and is taking the responsibility to act.

Chomper Higgot

On what basis do you believe that "millions of lives are at stake"  Is it that the vaccines can not be produced fast enough or do you just object to the fact that Johnson & Johnson can be so inventive to produce a vaccine for as little as $10 and still make a profit from it. 

What specifically is your objection to patent protection for the drug companies

1. You object to them making money from their drug or 
2. You don't believe they have the capability to produce sufficient quantities of the vaccines. 

If it is the former than why apply that just to the Covid Vaccine.  Biden has the means to void all of the patents on all medicines and benefits millions that are suffering and need drugs for cancer treatment, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure etc. Why the objection to only the Covid Drug. 

If it is supply, why would you object to forcing the drug companies to enter into licensing agreements to meet production requirement allowing them to at least make licensing fees. 

Again, using your statement if you have the means you have the responsibility to act. 

Why stop with the drug companies.  Biden has the means to nationalize all the hospitals, put all the doctors on wage constraint, force the insurance companies to provide unlimited coverage on medial policies, confiscate the means of production for ventilators, nationalize the companies that manufacture personal protection gear,  federalize the medical supply companies that produce gowns, syringes, infusion bags and tubes.  

What you are proposing is retroactively breaking the rule of law not to save "millions of lives"  If Biden wants to make those vaccines open source HE HAS THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO WRITE THEM A CHECK TO PURCHASE THEIR PATENT - NOT STRIP IT AWAY.  That is taking of private property without compensation.  The very essence of Communism. 
 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Thomas J

[impulse]

On 5/11/2021 at 2:25 AM, Thomas J said:

Now, with Pfizer, you can get 2 shots for approximately $30 to $40 total.  Johnson & Johnson cost about $10 for 1 shot.  Wow what a rip off for life saving drugs.

 

Try telling that to a family of 5 in sub Saharan Africa that brings in that much in a year.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Chomper Higgot

On what basis do you believe that "millions of lives are at stake"  Is it that the vaccines can not be produced fast enough or do you just object to the fact that Johnson & Johnson can be so inventive to produce a vaccine for as little as $10 and still make a profit from it. 

What specifically is your objection to patent protection for the drug companies

1. You object to them making money from their drug or 
2. You don't believe they have the capability to produce sufficient quantities of the vaccines. 

If it is the former than why apply that just to the Covid Vaccine.  Biden has the means to void all of the patents on all medicines and benefits millions that are suffering and need drugs for cancer treatment, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure etc. Why the objection to only the Covid Drug. 

If it is supply, why would you object to forcing the drug companies to enter into licensing agreements to meet production requirement allowing them to at least make licensing fees. 

Again, using your statement if you have the means you have the responsibility to act. 

Why stop with the drug companies.  Biden has the means to nationalize all the hospitals, put all the doctors on wage constraint, force the insurance companies to provide unlimited coverage on medial policies, confiscate the means of production for ventilators, nationalize the companies that manufacture personal protection gear,  federalize the medical supply companies that produce gowns, syringes, infusion bags and tubes.  

What you are proposing is retroactively breaking the rule of law not to save "millions of lives"  If Biden wants to make those vaccines open source HE HAS THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO WRITE THEM A CHECK TO PURCHASE THEIR PATENT - NOT STRIP IT AWAY.  That is taking of private property without compensation.  The very essence of Communism. 
 

I don’t mind your reliance on straw man arguments, but please do not attribute to

me arguments that I have not made or points of view I do not hold.

 

To answer the single question you ask that refers to my posts:

 

On what basis do you believe that "millions of lives are at stake"

 

Millions of lives have already been lost, millions more are at risk.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

 

Incidentally, I’m not proposing anything, I am supportive of the proposal be experts in public health that the patents are hampering distribution of the vaccine to hundreds of millions of people world wide.

 

I have zero say in the matter, but Biden does, and as you have noticed he too is supportive of the proposal.

 

I hope you don’t think it rude of me but I’ll give the rest of your hyperbole the attention it deserves.

 

 

[Thomas J]

13 hours ago, impulse said:

Try telling that to a family of 5 in sub Saharan Africa that brings in that much in a year.

A. Joe Biden is not president of Saharan Africa

B. If he wants the USA to supply the drug "free" buy the drugs from the drug company and then distribute them as he wishes. 

C. Even if the drug goes "generic" can the Sub Saharan African family purchase it at $5, $3 or even $1? assuming the drug goes that low in price?

There are many answers to providing the world with vaccines.

1. Biden could offer the vaccine companies all U.S. facilities with the capability to produce vaccines at no charge or at cost to increase production.

 

2. Biden could force all competing drug companies to produce the vaccine under licensing agreements with the inventors of the vaccine thereby increasing production.

3. Biden could purchase the rights of the vaccines from the companies and then manufacture them and distribute them as he wishes. 

4. Biden could purchase unlamented amounts of the vaccines from the drug companies and give them away for free if he wished.

However the only answer is to have the drug companies not only come up with a cure but also be the ones who supply it at zero profit to the world. 

There are a huge number of companies that "profit" from Coronavirus.  Should Biden stop the companies making coronovirus testing kits from making a profit, how about personal protection gear, ventilator companies, manufactures of face masks, how about bleach manufactures, lets not forget the hand sanitizers, make sure to include those drugs like Remdisivir to treat the disease, of course the syringe companies, infusion bags and tubes, and of course lets make sure that the hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses all chip in their time for free also. 

Definition of a liberal:  Someone who thinks something is a good thing and wants someone else to pay for it. 
 

[Thomas J]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Millions of lives have already been lost, millions more are at risk.

Yes, millions of lives have been lost.  However do you believe that additional lives are at risk because there is an inadequate supply of the vaccine? 

If that is the case

 

1. Have Biden mandate other drug companies shift their manufacturing under licensing from the companies who invented it.

2. Have Biden offer to provide whatever facilities the USA has at its disposal capable of producing vaccines under license to those who invented it. 

3. If there is sufficient supply but cost is an issue, have Biden purchase as much vaccine as he is willing to purchase and give it away if that is his desire.

4. Have Biden write a check to the companies who invented the vaccines for their patents and then he can given it away as he sees fit. 

The drug companies are the only one who answered the bell and came up with the remedy for the pandemic and now you want them also to foot the bill for distributing it to the world for nothing as a reward for their efforts. 

As previously stated there are only two reasons to strip the patent protection.  It is either a hatred of the fact that a company can produce a vaccine sell it for as little as $10 and still make a profit. Or, it is there is an inadequate supply of the virus.  If it is the latter there are plenty of alternatives for countries to "purchase" the vaccine or the rights to manufacture it to increase the supply.  

Putting the burden entirely on the drug companies to not only invent the drug but do so for free is nothing short of communistic. 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Putting the burden entirely on the drug companies to not only invent the drug but do so for free is nothing short of communistic. 

Just one tiny little problem with your summary: they've already made billions and stand to make billions more whether or not patent protection is lifted for developing nations.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Thomas J said:

Yes, millions of lives have been lost.  However do you believe that additional lives are at risk because there is an inadequate supply of the vaccine? 

If that is the case

 

1. Have Biden mandate other drug companies shift their manufacturing under licensing from the companies who invented it.

2. Have Biden offer to provide whatever facilities the USA has at its disposal capable of producing vaccines under license to those who invented it. 

3. If there is sufficient supply but cost is an issue, have Biden purchase as much vaccine as he is willing to purchase and give it away if that is his desire.

4. Have Biden write a check to the companies who invented the vaccines for their patents and then he can given it away as he sees fit. 

The drug companies are the only one who answered the bell and came up with the remedy for the pandemic and now you want them also to foot the bill for distributing it to the world for nothing as a reward for their efforts. 

As previously stated there are only two reasons to strip the patent protection.  It is either a hatred of the fact that a company can produce a vaccine sell it for as little as $10 and still make a profit. Or, it is there is an inadequate supply of the virus.  If it is the latter there are plenty of alternatives for countries to "purchase" the vaccine or the rights to manufacture it to increase the supply.  

Putting the burden entirely on the drug companies to not only invent the drug but do so for free is nothing short of communistic. 

Biden doesn’t have to do any of that, he simply backs the calls to remove the patent protection.

 

Thereafter the world’s vaccine manufacturers ( which in many cases are process companies not pharmaceutical developer companies) can do their bit and meet the demand for vaccines.

 

You need to quit with your assertion that there are only two reasons to remove a patent, that ‘hate’ thing you keep

trying to inject into the discussion is a figment of your own imagination, give insisting others hold views they have not expressed a rest.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[Thomas J]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to quit with your assertion that there are only two reasons to remove a patent, that ‘hate’ thing you keep

trying to inject into the discussion is a figment of your own imagination, give insisting others hold views they have not expressed a rest.

Ok I challenge you.  What other reason is it to remove the patent protection. 

 

[Thomas J]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

can do their bit and meet the demand for vaccines.

So what is your argument against forcing the inventing pharmaceutical companies from hitting production targets versus stripping them of patent protection.  LET THEM. enter into licensing agreements.  

Again, if Biden wants to make the Patents a gift to the world, he should purchase the patent and then give it away versus stripping it from them. 

The only thing, the absolute only thing Bidens actions will guarantee is that any new vaccine research will be slowed if not stopped.  If I am a drug company why would I invest millions of dollars that may prove fruitless on an even better vaccine or cure, knowing that Biden and others if I am successful will just confiscate my efforts and make it open source. 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Thomas J

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Ok I challenge you.  What other reason is it to remove the patent protection. 

 

The most commonly cited argument made in past cases of the US (and other nations) ignoring/stripping patents is.... are you ready for this?!

 

 

For reasons of National interest.

[Thomas J]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The most commonly cited argument made in past cases of the US (and other nations) ignoring/stripping patents is.... are you ready for this?!

 

 

For reasons of National interest.

Again, you avoid the answer.  

If it is lack of production which I question. What is your objection to forcing the companies to meet production limits as contrasted to stripping their patent. 

You just can't stand that they can make a vaccine for as little as $10 and still make a profit and you want to rob them of that. 

And as for the USA there is no shortage of vaccine. And I might remind you that Biden is president of the USA not the world. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Thomas J

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

So what is your argument against forcing the inventing pharmaceutical companies from hitting production targets versus stripping them of patent protection.  LET THEM. enter into licensing agreements.  

Again, if Biden wants to make the Patents a gift to the world, he should purchase the patent and then give it away versus stripping it from them. 

The only thing, the absolute only thing Bidens actions will guarantee is that any new vaccine research will be slowed if not stopped.  If I am a drug company why would I invest millions of dollars that may prove fruitless on an even better vaccine or cure, knowing that Biden and others if I am successful will just confiscate my efforts and make it open source. 

 

‘Forcing companies’

 

What like in ‘Command Economy’ (As practiced by communists?!

 

Or what about your ‘Biden buying vaccines to give away’, as in spending tax payer’s money, from those who have to those who have not - Socialism.

 

Or your giving vaccines away free and therefore distorting the market.

 

Your arguments are a mess.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your arguments are a mess.

No you just can't come up with a cohesive answer. 

Biden has unlimited resources to purchase as much vaccine as he wishes to give it away.  But no, you want the drug companies who invented it to bear the cost of their research and the thanks they get is to void their profits. 

Again, if it is availability stripping patent protections is not the only answer.  

He can force the drug companies into production quotas.  If they can't meet those with their facilities they will have to license it. 

He can make whatever USA facilities are capable available to the drug companies for use in producing vaccines. 

If his goal is to make all the vaccines open source, then he can buy the patents and give them away

But no, you want him to steal their intellectual property and give it away.  

Do you then favor if a government takes your home for a highway project or housing development because it is in "the public good" but not pay you for it. 

Do you favor Biden stripping all of Tesla's patent protections making them open source because global warming will destroy the earth if we don't move away from carbon based vehicles. 

As mentioned, I don't see how you can possibly miss the point that what that action does is kill any incentive going forward.  If drug companies, medical device companies etc. are of the mindset that all they do is take the risk with Zero possibility of a profit, they will stop inventing new medicines and products. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You just can't stand that they can make a vaccine for as little as $10 and still make a profit and you want to rob them of that. 

 

 

An example of your habit of assigning views to people that they themselves have never expressed.

 

Try arguing with the views people actually express rather than arguing with views you yourself invented in their behalf.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No you just can't come up with a cohesive answer. 

Biden has unlimited resources to purchase as much vaccine as he wishes to give it away.  But no, you want the drug companies who invented it to bear the cost of their research and the thanks they get is to void their profits. 

Again, if it is availability stripping patent protections is not the only answer.  

He can force the drug companies into production quotas.  If they can't meet those with their facilities they will have to license it. 

He can make whatever USA facilities are capable available to the drug companies for use in producing vaccines. 

If his goal is to make all the vaccines open source, then he can buy the patents and give them away

But no, you want him to steal their intellectual property and give it away.  

Do you then favor if a government takes your home for a highway project or housing development because it is in "the public good" but not pay you for it. 

Do you favor Biden stripping all of Tesla's patent protections making them open source because global warming will destroy the earth if we don't move away from carbon based vehicles. 

As mentioned, I don't see how you can possibly miss the point that what that action does is kill any incentive going forward.  If drug companies, medical device companies etc. are of the mindset that all they do is take the risk with Zero possibility of a profit, they will stop inventing new medicines and products. 

 

I clearly went beyond your understanding of economics and the ‘communism’ you are fixated on when I identified your call for applying the principles of ‘command economy’.

 

Commanding companies to mee demand, now that is rather ‘Communistic’.

 

Oh and this ‘zero profit’ hyperbole, that’s another one of your inventions.

 

 

You make it all up as you go along.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[Thomas J]

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An example of your habit of assigning views to people that they themselves have never expressed.

 

Try arguing with the views people actually express rather than arguing with views you yourself invented in their behalf.

Again, I have repeatedly asked you but you refuse to reply.  What is your specific reason to strip the patent protections:

There can be only two rationales

 

1. A person hates seeing any company make a profit from producing products in response to the pandemic and wants to strip those profits away. 

2. They believe that stripping the patent will increase the supply of the vaccine.

To which I reply if it is the former that is petty. If a company is so good that it can produce a drug for less than the cost of a 1 oz tube to cure athletes foot to prevent covid and they can still make a profit at it, they should be congratulated not condemned. 

If the supply is what you wish to increase there are numerous other ways of accomplishing that without destroying the mechanism that brings new drugs to market. 

Now if Biden wishes to "make a gift" of the discoveries of these companies to the world.  He should at least have the decency to purchase those patents first before giving them away. 

In terms of your previous comments regarding "distorting the market"  The USA right now purchases drugs from those companies and "gives them away free" to all USA citizens.  If Biden purchased drugs and gave them away free it does not distort the market it just changes who pays for that generosity.  You want that to be the drug companies through lost profits. 

In terms of mandating production capacities, first, I don't know if the current vaccine manufacturers have the manufacturing capacity to meet the world demand.  If they don't then certainly they would be open to license the manufacturing of their vaccine to other companies.  They do that all the time when demand outstrips supply.  However that preserves their patent, gives them the ability to make a profit from the licensing.  Even the government mandating they do so is an intrusion but that is far far far less damaging than stripping them from patent protections. 

Again I will ask you specifically the answer "national interest" is a dodge. 

Do you object to the companies making a profit 
or do you want the amount of vaccine to be increased?

 

Assuming that the companies would license their vaccines and an adequate supply for the world be produced would you be satisfied or do you still want to confiscate the patent. 

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve given my arguments in this thread.

 

You have accused me of hating Pharmaceutical companies, no amount retroactively changing your argument will get away from that fact.

 

You could of course accept your unwarranted accusation and apologize, but I’ll not hold my breath.

No you have deliberately avoided answering.  Only given the "its in the national interest"

Again, is it because you hate the pharmaceutical companies and the fact they answered the call of duty to come up with a vaccine and can still make a profit for less than half a case of Chang

Or if it is supply what specifically is your objection to them licensing to whatever extent is necessary to meet whatever production is required.  

The only difference between what I am proposing and what you are proposing is profit.  If Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca can supply all that the world needs either directly or through licensing agreements then removing the patent only removes the profit not the vaccine. 

If some countries can not afford the vaccine, then certainly the wealthy countries can purchase the vaccines directly and donate them to those regions or they can provide funds to purchase the vaccine.  The only difference is at whose expense the drug companies or the government. 

There are "many" worthwhile things in this world.  You could void patents on cancer chemo-therapy, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease.  Why stop only with voiding the patents on Covid Vaccines.  After all Cancer kill s far more people than Covid and many in the world can not afford the life saving Chemo Drugs.