This part of the draft bill is just a derivation of a US law called Eminent Domain, which allows governments to confiscate land for the public good, for example to build power transmission lines. (As an aside, the amusing thing about Eminent Domain laws is that they work in a hierarchy. A state government can claim land from local governments, and the feds can claim land from the states. Of course, any government can claim land from an individual. I get an odd sense of satisfaction from the spectacle of watching the grabbers get grabbed.). But patents and other intellectual property aren't land, which is a unique and physically limited resource; intellectual property is the same as any other property, and is protected by the 5th amendment. What Sanders is saying is that when property rights are inconvenient, we'll just ignore the Constitution and seize the property anyway. And, to make matters worse, in the negotiation process the bill tries to divert the compensation claims to the Court of Federal Claims, rather than the US Circuit Courts, which is stacking the deck in favor of the government.\nSo everyone hates the drug companies for seemingly trying to profit from human misery, but let's turn this precedent around to get closer to home, literally. Once you let the government seize personal property for the public good you're on a very slippery slope. Let's say you're an empty nester and you have a big house with a few empty bedrooms. The government says there's a big problem with homeless people, and for the public good you're going to have to take in homeless people to live in those bedrooms, and the government will compensate you based on a formula they come up with. And you don't get to choose who the homeless people are either. And there's no requirement that the law gets applied evenly. You may have to take homeless people in, but your neighbor doesn't. Yes, I'm turning up the contrast, but legally there's no difference. Property is all the same to the laws. Private property is either protected or it isn't.\nInteresting point. Had to look it up the text of the Fifth Amendment..."nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."\nSo the right to private property isn't absolute. If the government expropriated intellectual property and the company isn't happy with the compensation offered, I assume they could take it to court and argue it out. As you say, it's a slippery slope, but I don't think it's unprecedented. And, the hypothetical situation you present strikes me as reductio ad absurdum.