@quackquack saidYeah, making only $30 billion profit in a quarter is surely discouraging to future investment.
Maybe you have the thick skull so I'll explain it to you.
We won't have vaccines in the future or continued research for a mutating virus if the companies that develop them aren't sufficiently compensated for their product. By refusing to pay for one of the most valuable inventions in a century you have indicated that you don't have an ounce of respect for those who cre ...[text shortened]... , who think they are entitled to life saving medicine without offering to paying a reasonable price.
It's truly remarkable how aggressive you want the People's government to be in helping a few multinational companies maximize their profits given your total lack of concern for the average working American (who should accept deep cuts in wages according to you).
2 edits
@quackquack said"We won't have vaccines in the future or continued research for a mutating virus if the companies that develop them aren't sufficiently compensated for their product. "
Maybe you have the thick skull so I'll explain it to you.
We won't have vaccines in the future or continued research for a mutating virus if the companies that develop them aren't sufficiently compensated for their product. By refusing to pay for one of the most valuable inventions in a century you have indicated that you don't have an ounce of respect for those who cre ...[text shortened]... , who think they are entitled to life saving medicine without offering to paying a reasonable price.
Companies get a large portion of their research from public grants, especially something that is as urgent as a drug or vaccine. Astra-Zeneca bought the patent for its vaccine from Oxford University which developed it largely with uk taxpayer money.
Thinking that research would simply stop if companies don't get as much profit as they want is just idiotic.
"By refusing to pay for one of the most valuable inventions in a century you have indicated that you don't have an ounce of respect for those who create products that save lives even in a pandemic."
First of all, nobody suggested it be given away for free, just that some of the richest countries support some of the cost AFTER they negotiate a better, fairer price, so that everyone gets vaccinated which helps everyone.
And seeing as much of the research was done by researchers across the world over multiple years it should stand to reason that the entire world gets a say in how it's distributed.
If you think american companies developed drugs on their own, you are a dumbass. Well, you're a dumbass for many other reasons, this would just be the latest.
"Payment for life saving inventions encourages the creation of them."
Yes, like when the inventor of insulin started a company that sold insulin shots for 2 weeks of average worker pay and became a billionaire. Wait, it doesn't sound right, i think I don't remember that correctly. Oh well, he sold it for a sum, right, definitely not 1 dollar. I mean, who would do the decent thing and sell a life saving drug for 1 dollar? That is unheard of.
"And, for the record, no one cares about freeloaders, like yourself, who think they are entitled to life saving medicine without offering to paying a reasonable price."
Actually, you would find that the majority of people agree with me, not you, because the majority of people are actually decent human beings and not ghouls. Canada sells insulin at a reasonable price. Germany, France, the UK, don't allow pharma companies to gouge their citizens for life saving drugs. Not just first world countries.
It's just your lovely country, home of the free, that considers it's a good idea to let a private entity driven solely by profit, answering to fewer and fewer regulations, develop life saving drugs with taxpayer money and then charge whatever they can get away with (and they can get away with a lot when someone's life is on the line). If a couple people die, who cares. It's an industry that doesn't need to sell a lot of volume. If nine people die because they can only afford paying X, all you need is to find that tenth rich guy that is willing to pay 10X and no profit was lost. Or give Medicare a ton of medicine at a price dictated by them because, only in your country, that one entity isn't allowed to negotiate the price.
But you're not really this evil, right? Or this stupid? It's hard to believe such a dumb caricature of a 20's villain can exist without being a CEO of some corporation. And since I doubt you're a multibillionaire trying to convince some randos on a chess site that it's totally ok to ask for a dying man's last penny you must be a troll.
1 edit
@sh76 saidI admit I have no expertise in this area, but do US patents have extraterritorial effect?
In rem jusridiction assuming the drug company holds US assets. Otherwise, I supposed they'd have to file in those companies' home countries, but presumably patent law would be applicable under TRIPS.
EDIT: The United States Patent and Trademark Office says "no":
"Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. "
https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/ipr-toolkits#:~:text=Since%20the%20rights%20granted%20by,or%20in%20regional%20patent%20offices.
@sh76 saidSo if TRIPS wasn't applicable and US patents have no extraterritorial effect, on what legal basis could companies sue in the US for some company in Burundi "violating" their patent?
They're not claiming the power either.
Notice the language "administration's support." They're not claiming they can do this unilaterally.
To clarify what I said above, the US is a signatory of TRIPS, which member states agree to enforce the patents of member states. The Biden administration can withdraw from TRIPS, at least with regard to the COVAX. It can also encourage ...[text shortened]... n't unilaterally make a blanket prohibition on patent enforcement and they're not claiming they can.
I note the Doha Declaration in 2001 provided that ""the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health". https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/doha_declaration/en/#:~:text=The%20Doha%20Declaration%20refers%20to,freedom%20to%20establish%20the%20regime
@no1marauder saidCould that Doha declaration automatically absolve all TRIPS nations of their responsibilities? Seems doubtful. Of course, this is uncharted territory. I guess ultimately countries will decide for themselves what to do.
So if TRIPS wasn't applicable and US patents have no extraterritorial effect, on what legal basis could companies sue in the US for some company in Burundi "violating" their patent?
I note the Doha Declaration in 2001 provided that ""the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health". https://www.who.int/medicines ...[text shortened]... claration/en/#:~:text=The%20Doha%20Declaration%20refers%20to,freedom%20to%20establish%20the%20regime
@no1marauder saidYour position is utterly ridiculous. Drug companies should get reasonable profits in all markets for their drugs. Countries that refuse to pay the fair rate for vaccines that save millions of lives and avoid pandemics shouldn't get it for free, they should be condemned.
Yeah, making only $30 billion profit in a quarter is surely discouraging to future investment.
It's truly remarkable how aggressive you want the People's government to be in helping a few multinational companies maximize their profits given your total lack of concern for the average working American (who should accept deep cuts in wages according to you).
@quackquack saidYou mean their People should be condemned............ to death for living in a poor nation.
Your position is utterly ridiculous. Drug companies should get reasonable profits in all markets for their drugs. Countries that refuse to pay the fair rate for vaccines that save millions of lives and avoid pandemics shouldn't get it for free, they should be condemned.
Patents are a government created monopoly; how can a "fair price" be determined under such conditions?
Since insulin was discovered (and the patent sold for 1 dollar precisely so that it would be affordable to everyone) drug companies have made "improvement" after "improvement", had it patented and then sold at ludicrous prices in the US. Doctors are pressured into prescribing the newer kinds of insulin even though the benefits compared to older drugs are barely noticeable (or maybe they aren't even manufactured anymore). Medicare has to buy at whatever prices are dictated to them because it isn't allowed to negotiate. In a supposedly free market, you aren't allowed to negotiate for a better deal, because politicians bought by the pharmaceutical companies enact bills preventing exactly such a thing.
Drug companies spend the majority of their expense budget on marketing and lobbying. And then, through the politicians they bought, they beg for and receive research grants of taxpayer money or they simply buy research done in universities and slap their logo on it, call it "theirs" through the magic of patenting.
To say that humanity would stop inventing and researching simply because there isn't a profit to be made is just plain idiotic
@no1marauder saidCan't the government just buy a license from Pfizer to allow other companies to manufacture it? Pfizer is there for money, not power.
You mean their People should be condemned............ to death for living in a poor nation.
Patents are a government created monopoly; how can a "fair price" be determined under such conditions?
And please don't say the US government can't afford it. We're spending zillions of dollars on everything else. A few hundred million for a patent license is a rounding error.
My main concern is whether, by abridging the patent now, you make it less likely that these companies will bust their butts to develop anti-variant boosters should they become necessary.
@no1marauder saidThe fair price isn't to force someone to give away product without paying for it. The purchaser would be countries. All of which for money, labor, land, mineral rights and literally millions of other things they could give for a life saving vaccine. The reasonable expectation is that you pay for product, not receive it for free.
You mean their People should be condemned............ to death for living in a poor nation.
Patents are a government created monopoly; how can a "fair price" be determined under such conditions?
@zahlanzi saidYou live in an alternate reality. Vaccines were developed because people as a result of a cost benefit analysis a company thought a life saving product could be profitable. If the profits cease to exists they simply will alter their business to make things that they believe will be profitable. If we like life saving products, then let's not interfere with companies ability to sell their product. No one works for free, everyone justifiably wants compensation and without it we don't get the benefits of their creation/ labor/ investment/ development.
Since insulin was discovered (and the patent sold for 1 dollar precisely so that it would be affordable to everyone) drug companies have made "improvement" after "improvement", had it patented and then sold at ludicrous prices in the US. Doctors are pressured into prescribing the newer kinds of insulin even though the benefits compared to older drugs are barely noticeable (o ...[text shortened]... stop inventing and researching simply because there isn't a profit to be made is just plain idiotic
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis issue has nothing to do with who you perceive did hard work. There would be no vaccine if the company did not believe it would be profitable to create vaccines and when we decrease the profitability of vaccines, rational companies will shift investment from the creation of future vaccines to product where they can make a profit. This is a problem if you like vaccines.