Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/1380953732091944966

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

We can say that drug companies should not patent vaccines but if we made it impossible to do so there would be fewer vaccines. Research and development costs are enormous and given the failure rate of vaccines companies want to be able to make a windfall to justify the initial investment.

Could we amend the patent system for life-saving drugs? Sure. I don't doubt that market exclusivity is greater than is necessary to create the right incentives but this just seems like the kind of ineffectual, unrealistic nonsense I hear from some quarters. The sentiment is right, but are they even considering what would achieve the best outcome?

[Stavros]

Surely the issue here is not so much about making a profit, but the Patent as a guarantee of quality and authenticity, and is the reason why patents exist (ask a lawyer!). Woud you rather have a vaccine which costs, say £10 and says 'Pfizer' on the label knowing it was made in Belgium, or one that costs £1 and says Pfizer, but was made in North Korea?

[broncofan]

Surely the issue here is not so much about making a profit, but the Patent as a guarantee of quality and authenticity, and is the reason why patents exist (ask a lawyer!). Woud you rather have a vaccine which costs, say £10 and says 'Pfizer' on the label knowing it was made in Belgium, or one that costs £1 and says Pfizer, but was made in North Korea?

I think the purpose of patents is to provide a property right to the inventor so that they can exclude other people from making their invention. This is thought to provide an incentive to create. By disclosing the invention the inventor gets a monopoly on its production for a term of years. In the U.S. that term is 20 years but the FDA also layers on top of it short periods of protection depending on the investment for that type of drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmen...nd-exclusivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_o..._United_States

Trademarks on the other hand identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._trademark_law

[blackchubby38]

https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/1380953732091944966

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

We can say that drug companies should not patent vaccines but if we made it impossible to do so there would be fewer vaccines. Research and development costs are enormous and given the failure rate of vaccines companies want to be able to make a windfall to justify the initial investment.

Could we amend the patent system for life-saving drugs? Sure. I don't doubt that market exclusivity is greater than is necessary to create the right incentives but this just seems like the kind of ineffectual, unrealistic nonsense I hear from some quarters. The sentiment is right, but are they even considering what would achieve the best outcome?

It doesn't make sense and the person who made the tweet and those who are liking it are thinking emotionally and not rationally.

[Stavros]

I think the purpose of patents is to provide a property right to the inventor so that they can exclude other people from making their invention. This is thought to provide an incentive to create. By disclosing the invention the inventor gets a monopoly on its production for a term of years. In the U.S. that term is 20 years but the FDA also layers on top of it short periods of protection depending on the investment for that type of drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmen...nd-exclusivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_o..._United_States

Trademarks on the other hand identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._trademark_law

Thanks for pointing out the difference between a Patent and a Trademark, not something I had thought about. But one has to chuckle at your description of Trademarks which "identify the source of a good and help guarantee quality control"- perhaps that is why it cost so much for the President's securty detail to stay at Mar-a-Lago? Or maybe the words 'quality' and 'control' are in this instance separate concepts? One wonders what other establishments with the famous Trademark deserve the accolades associated with the word 'quality'.

[filghy2]

I'm curious what everyone's response is to this tweet. It came up on my timeline and is extremely popular. I don't think it makes sense. I would love to live in a world where everyone invested money without expectation of return and every scientist worked on cures and vaccines solely because it's rewarding but some people do want to protect and monetize their creations.

I think what people are really objecting to is that life-preserving drugs should be priced at a level that many people cannot afford. The obvious solution is that the government should subsidise essential drugs, which is what happens in most developed countries (though maybe not the US). In Australia we only have to make a specified co-payment for drug prescriptions, regardless of the original price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharma...enefits_Scheme

Monopolies lead to excessive profiteering due to lack of competition, so if the government grants a monopoly (which is what a patent does) it should also regulate the price. In Australia this is done through the price the government is willing to pay for drugs. I guess health insurers play a somewhat similar role in the US, although the government is likely to have more bargaining power as it's effectively the sole buyer.

[broncofan]

I think what people are really objecting to is that life-preserving drugs should be priced at a level that many people cannot afford. The obvious solution is that the government should subsidise essential drugs, which is what happens in most developed countries (though maybe not the US). In Australia we only have to make a specified co-payment for drug prescriptions, regardless of the original price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharma...enefits_Scheme

Monopolies lead to excessive profiteering due to lack of competition, so if the government grants a monopoly (which is what a patent does) it should also regulate the price. In Australia this is done through the price the government is willing to pay for drugs. I guess health insurers play a somewhat similar role in the US, although the government is likely to have more bargaining power as it's effectively the sole buyer.

I agree with you. I just think the tweet is in such a hurry to go after the bad guy that it suggests an unrealistic solution (not patenting new drugs) and avoids the useful one you suggest. A subsidy would mean the company can recover its r&d investment, make a profit and that people get access to a vaccine.

So far the U.S. government or state and local governments are covering 100% of the vaccine cost. I think there should be more and better ways to put leverage on pharma companies not to exploit their short-term monopolies in ways that are unethical. Yes drug companies seem to get away with charging excessive prices when they're dealing with insurance companies and patients.

I am definitely in favor of (lots of) reform of our healthcare system as well as the system in place to provide additional layers of market exclusivity beyond the patent life for new drugs. I'd support subsidies and even some price control measures in extreme cases.

[Stavros]

Change has not come to America-

"Andy Ngo, a journalist affiliated with right-wing groups, shared what he said were friends’ social media tributes to Toledo — who was shot to death by police while reportedly unarmed with his hands up — while claiming that Toledo’s nickname was “Lil Homicide” in gang circles. Ngo shared these screenshots alongside a video of Toledo being accosted by police.
And in a recent segment on his radio show, Sean Hannity described Toledo as a “thirteen-year-old man”. Comparatively, Fox News programming that aired in 2020 described Kyle Rittenhouse — a seventeen-year-old who traveled across state lines with an unlicensed AR-15, shot two people to death and injured another while counter-protesting a rally in support of Jacob Blake — as a “little boy trying to help his community”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1832814.html

[Stavros]

The trail of tears -a $20 bill, and an air freshener in the car...

[sukumvit boy]

A fascinating and in depth look at the state sponsored hacking culture in the hermit kingdom whose activities include 'milking' ATM cash machines on a grand scale ,robbing cryptocurrency exchanges and targeting governments,corporations and even individuals with ransomware.