GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I couldn't resist the urge to google anti vaccine and COVID. As predicted, my IQ is now lower.

Here are some examples of anti vaccine nuttiness, COVID edition:

>>>There are two major types of disinformation being promulgated about the coronavirus vaccines:
  • Anecdotal "cause-and-effect" rumors that erroneously tie a person's untimely demise to the fact they recently got a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • "Big lie" conspiracy theories that allege the vaccine can cause all manner of major side effects, from infertility to permanently altering your genetics. . . .
One of the most common big lie rumors involves the messenger RNA (mRNA) in the two COVID-19 vaccines somehow rewriting your personal DNA, Offit and Foster noted. . . . The idea that mRNA could rewrite your DNA is "utterly impossible," Offit said. . . .

Another rumor holds that the vaccine can cause infertility because the spike protein it helps create shares some amino acids with synectin, a protein found in the placenta, Foster said. <<<



It's actually an industry:

>>>The term ‘anti-vaxxer’ may evoke images of a conspiracy theorist in a grimy basement or a disheveled figure on a crate railing against ‘microchips’ and ‘global plots’. In reality, the key protagonists in the ‘anti-vaxx industry’ are a coherent group of professional propagandists. These are people running multi-million-dollar organizations, incorporated mainly in the USA, with as many as 60 staff each1. They produce training manuals for activists, tailor their messages for different audiences, and arrange meetings akin to annual trades conferences, like any other industry. . . .

Every anti-vaxx message can be boiled down to a master narrative of three parts: “COVID-19 isn’t dangerous; vaccines are dangerous; you can’t trust doctors or scientists.” <<<

Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp | CBC News

An on-line class of 400 @ $623 a pop = a cool quarter mil...to make people even less informed than when they started.

And Jesus wept... :rolleyes:
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp | CBC News

An on-line class of 400 @ $623 a pop = a cool quarter mil...to make people even less informed than when they started.

And Jesus wept... :rolleyes:
They are spreading disinformation (that governments and corporations are spreading disinformation for profit) for profit.

It's strange that antivaxers apparently believe that all vaccines are dangerous regardless of what is actually in any given vaccine. It's an incredibly simplistic belief system.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
They are spreading disinformation (that governments and corporations are spreading disinformation for profit) for profit.

It's strange that antivaxers apparently believe that all vaccines are dangerous regardless of what is actually in any given vaccine. It's an incredibly simplistic belief system.
And these antivaxers most likely owe their lives to the polio and smallpox vaccine that got when they were young.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
And these antivaxers most likely owe their lives to the polio and smallpox vaccine that got when they were young.
It's fun to ask an antivaxer if they've been vaccinated. Haven't had one say no yet.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
This is scary. Not for the COVID pandemic, but the next one. Why would any company invest after having the patent system promises broken?


Not that it'll make much difference in vaccine availability in the near term. Without access to the research that produced the patents and the manufacturing know-how, it seems unlikely manufacturing could ramp up quickly, and that assumes appropriate facilities were available. This is a really dumb idea.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
This is scary. Not for the COVID pandemic, but the next one. Why would any company invest after having the patent system promises broken?


Not that it'll make much difference in vaccine availability in the near term. Without access to the research that produced the patents and the manufacturing know-how, it seems unlikely manufacturing could ramp up quickly, and that assumes appropriate facilities were available. This is a really dumb idea.
Maybe a dumb question, but isn't the logic here to make it easier for other companies to produce the vaccine so they can get it to people faster? If not, then what's the point? Also, couldn't the companies that hold the patents just license the vaccine to other companies if they want to make it?

Apologies if this is in the article, haven't had time to read it yet.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Maybe a dumb question, but isn't the logic here to make it easier for other companies to produce the vaccine so they can get it to people faster? If not, then what's the point? Also, couldn't the companies that hold the patents just license the vaccine to other companies if they want to make it?

Apologies if this is in the article, haven't had time to read it yet.
I see the article has been expanded somewhat since I posted the link.

All of the US vaccine developers already have independent manufacturers produce much of the vaccine supply. This proposal appears to be coming out of the House of Representatives (Pelosi endorses it). Almost certainly the government would have to compensate the drugs companies for the "taken" patents, and that would cost many billions of dollars. I still contend this is a profoundly stupid idea.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Maybe a dumb question, but isn't the logic here to make it easier for other companies to produce the vaccine so they can get it to people faster? If not, then what's the point? Also, couldn't the companies that hold the patents just license the vaccine to other companies if they want to make it?

Apologies if this is in the article, haven't had time to read it yet.
In some ways this is just a recent example of the never-ending back and forth concerning IP between developed countries and developing countries. Less developed countries do not have the resources to to invest in R&D so they have an incentive to provide weak domestic IP rights and copy innovations developed in other countries. The problem is that these countries will never attract R&D investments or develop sophisticated domestic capabilities if they don't provide domestic IP protection (some would argue that governments can provide the necessary R&D spending without IP protection)

Simplifying greatly, TRIPS (first link below) is basically an agreement by WTO countries that says "We [the developed countries] will let you [the less developed countries] sell goods to our countries if you agree to provide IP protection in your countries [i.e. stop stealing our IP]"

IP protection for medical devices and pharmaceutical products has always been a contentious issue. One side argues that it's unethical, etc. to profit from these technologies. The other side argues (as Irv does) that the technologies won't exist if there's no incentive to invest in the necessary R&D (full disclosure: I generally agree with Irv on this). The counter argument is normally that government spending can provide the necessary incentive (or, in the context of international trade, that the companies make enough money in the developed countries already). The counter argument to government funded R&D is that governments are not good at picking winning technologies. A counter argument to this is that free markets do not respond well to large problems that require investments beyond the capability of private companies. The same basic arguments have been going on forever.

Back to TRIPS and your question about licensing, some background may be in order. There are no compulsory licenses in the U.S. (outside of a few specific situations). In general, a patent owner does not have to produce a product covered by a patent, and a patent owner does not have to license. Some countries have compulsory licensing which means another company can use a patented invention but they have to pay a license. Arguments for and against compulsory licenses have gone on for years.

TRIPS already includes a compulsory license provision if the IP owner has refused a reasonable offer, but developing countries want a waiver so they don't have pay anything at all (in a sense a temporary free license). Most of the mainstream media coverage ignores the existing TRIPS compulsory licensing provision.

I'm not sure a waiver, by itself, would actually make that much difference with regards to the RNA vaccines (the RNA vaccine IP seems to be the main issue). A lot of know how and practical knowledge is required to produce the vaccines (not to mention the capital required), and even the companies that developed the technology are having difficulty ramping up production. Licenses typically include patent rights, know how, and trade secrets. Even if the waiver goes through, the IP owners could refuse to provide know how and trade secrets. Trying to force this strikes me as a losing proposition.

My initial impression was that the demand for a waiver was a political ploy to apply pressure for a very low royalty rate. However, the news reports seem to suggest that the countries pushing the waiver are not just negotiating for a cheap license. Either they naive about the need for know how, or they believe they can apply political pressure for access to the know how after they get a waiver.

Overall, I'm not wild about the waiver because it reduces the incentive to invest going forward and I doubt that a waiver would really make that much difference. Having said that, I'd concede that there's something to the ideas that: 1) the economic well being (and health) of the developed countries depends at least to some degree on ending the pandemic around the world, and 2) a lot of the funding in the U.S. was provided by the government, so it's not clear incentives to create private investment are critical.

Of the following, in my opinion, the jdsupra note has the best legal insights, but the law360 article is pretty decent. The ipwatchdog article is weak on support for the central assertion, but it provides another point of view. The pharm article seems to be biased the other way (in favor of the Pharm companies), but the lawyer quoted in the article (Silverstein) makes some good points.





 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Almost certainly the government would have to compensate the drugs companies for the "taken" patents, and that would cost many billions of dollars. I still contend this is a profoundly stupid idea.
I’m not sure I follow. As I understand the waiver the foreign countries are saying they don’t want to enforce the IP rights of the US companies in their countries as required by TRIPS. If South Africa tells companies there “we will not enforce Pfizer’s South African patents” how does that result in the US government paying Pfizer? Pfizer’s US patents only cover activity in the US. TRIPS is a treaty between sovereign nations.


What provision of US law would require the US government to compensate Pfizer for a decision by South Africa not to sue for patent infringement?
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
In some ways this is just a recent example of the never-ending back and forth concerning IP between developed countries and developing countries. Less developed countries do not have the resources to to invest in R&D so they have an incentive to provide weak domestic IP rights and copy innovations developed in other countries. The problem is that these countries will never attract R&D investments or develop sophisticated domestic capabilities if they don't provide domestic IP protection (some would argue that governments can provide the necessary R&D spending without IP protection)

Simplifying greatly, TRIPS (first link below) is basically an agreement by WTO countries that says "We [the developed countries] will let you [the less developed countries] sell goods to our countries if you agree to provide IP protection in your countries [i.e. stop stealing our IP]"

IP protection for medical devices and pharmaceutical products has always been a contentious issue. One side argues that it's unethical, etc. to profit from these technologies. The other side argues (as Irv does) that the technologies won't exist if there's no incentive to invest in the necessary R&D (full disclosure: I generally agree with Irv on this). The counter argument is normally that government spending can provide the necessary incentive (or, in the context of international trade, that the companies make enough money in the developed countries already). The counter argument to government funded R&D is that governments are not good at picking winning technologies. A counter argument to this is that free markets do respond well to large problems that require investments beyond the capability of private companies. The same basic arguments have been going on forever.

Back to TRIPS and your question about licensing, some background may be in order. There are no compulsory licenses in the U.S. (outside of a few specific situations). In general, a patent owner does not have to produce a product covered by a patent, and a patent owner does not have to license. Some countries have compulsory licensing which means another company can use a patented invention but they have to pay a license. Arguments for and against compulsory licenses have gone on for years.

TRIPS already includes a compulsory license provision if the IP owner has refused a reasonable offer, but developing countries want a waiver so they don't have pay anything at all (in a sense a temporary free license). Most of the mainstream media coverage ignores the existing TRIPS compulsory licensing provision.

I'm not sure a waiver, by itself, would actually make that much difference with regards to the RNA vaccines (the RNA vaccine IP seems to be the main issue). A lot of know how and practical knowledge is required to produce the vaccines (not to mention the capital required), and even the companies that developed the technology are having difficulty ramping up production. Licenses typically include patent rights, know how, and trade secrets. Even if the waiver goes through, the IP owners could refuse to provide know how and trade secrets. Trying to force this strikes me as a losing proposition.

My initial impression was that the demand for a waiver was a political ploy to apply pressure for a very low royalty rate. However, the news reports seem to suggest that the countries pushing the waiver are not just negotiating for a cheap license. Either they naive about the need for know how, or they believe they can apply political pressure for access to the know how after they get a waiver.

Overall, I'm not wild about the waiver because it reduces the incentive to invest going forward and I doubt that a waiver would really make that much difference. Having said that, I'd concede that there's something to the ideas that: 1) the economic well being (and health) of the developed countries depends at least to some degree on ending the pandemic around the world, and 2) a lot of the funding in the U.S. was provided by the government, so it's not clear incentives to create private investment are critical.

Of the following, in my opinion, the jdsupra note has the best legal insights, but the law360 article is pretty decent. The ipwatchdog article is weak on support for the central assertion, but it provides another point of view. The pharm article seems to be biased the other way (in favor of the Pharm companies), but the lawyer quoted in the article (Silverstein) makes some good points.





As always, thank for putting the effort into answering my question AND posting sources
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I’m not sure I follow. As I understand the waiver the foreign countries are saying they don’t want to enforce the IP rights of the US companies in their countries as required by TRIPS. If South Africa tells companies there “we will not enforce Pfizer’s South African patents” how does that result in the US government paying Pfizer? Pfizer’s US patents only cover activity in the US. TRIPS is a treaty between sovereign nations.


What provision of US law would require the US government to compensate Pfizer for a decision by South Africa not to sue for patent infringement?
I didn't say that the USG had to compensate companies for South African decisions. I was referring to a proposal being "reviewed" by the Biden Administration to suspend US patent protections for patents related to COVID19 vaccine production. Note paragraph f:

s709.html
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
I didn't say that the USG had to compensate companies for South African decisions. I was referring to a proposal being "reviewed" by the Biden Administration to suspend US patent protections for patents related to COVID19 vaccine production. Note paragraph f:

s709.html
I still don't follow.

You said: "Almost certainly the government would have to compensate the drugs companies for the "taken" patents, and that would cost many billions of dollars."

What do you mean by this?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Maybe a dumb question, but isn't the logic here to make it easier for other companies to produce the vaccine so they can get it to people faster? If not, then what's the point? Also, couldn't the companies that hold the patents just license the vaccine to other companies if they want to make it?
Any time lawyers are involved, and they will be, someone will get rogered. I'd bet that the license will be very expensive, or the fees may be deferred, but they will be paid.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top