4 ms·

I don't think that's going to work because this is a fairly complicated machine, and the company itself which has experience building molecular testing equipmen

by pen2l 7y ago

I don't think that's going to work because this is a fairly complicated machine, and the company itself which has experience building molecular testing equipment and has a manufacturing supply chain in place is one of the only few that can build this. Also asking them to open-source their technology seems unfair, they're entitled to their share of pay for their hard work. The average engineer at this company probably makes much less than the average engineer at your FAANG company.

pmiller2 7y ago
I wouldn't ask. This is what eminent domain is literally for.
- mlyle 7y ago
  If you seize someone's company every time they have a worthwhile breakthrough, that's really going to put a damper on working on problems like this. Not only would you be toiling for uncertain/small reward, you might be flushing your entire business down the toilet. Also, you seize the company-- then what? Are you going to be able to ramp up production, etc, as well as the original product group could? Are you going to make them work on it at gunpoint?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives right fucking now, and I'll concede you might have a point. Otherwise, you're simply trying to draw a false equivalence.
  - dmarchand90 7y ago
    I agree there's a good point to this. At the same time I dislike and disbelieve the capitalist narrative that the deepest motivation is the profit one.
    - darawk 7y ago
      It's not that the deepest motivation is the profit one. It's that it's the best at bringing together large scale consistent cooperative teams. When you have a profit motive, you don't need to convince every single necessary person or resource provider to believe in your mission, you just have to pay them. And that makes a lot of things possible that wouldn't otherwise be.
- mobilefriendly 7y ago
  Eminent domain in the US still requires fair compensation.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Indeed, a 20% return would be more than fair, wouldn’t it? So, pay off their development costs + 20%.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      Oh yah, that makes a lot of sense. /s IF you succeed, you get upside bounded at +20%, but you still have full downside risk. And of course, most things in bio R&D don't work. Also, re: your other hyperbole point-- this test system is neat and fills a small gap in testing capabilities. It does not have the ability to "save millions of lives" but could be a nice tool among many to help slow things down. It doesn't scale well, so it's not how you'll do most tests, but there are scenarios where having a close-to-immediate result noticeably helps. > Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives ... The past century is littered with thousands of examples of technologies that have contributed in this or bigger ways. The Rosch and Abbott machines are going to be the workhorses here, not the Cepheid ones.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        No, you make 20% and save millions of lives. Identifying and quarantining the infected is literally the only tool we have now to slow this pandemic.
        mlyle 7y ago
        It seems you missed both points: * "Making" 20% if you happen to be successful, when most efforts fail, is not much of a prize-- especially if you lose your company in the process. Not even the most diehard gambler would play slots with those rules. ;) * It's not going to save millions of lives. There's lots of tests available meeting different needs. It may save some lives, and will likely improve quality of life of those suspected of having COVID-19 quite a bit. Identifying and quarantining is a complicated strategy and this test is not going to be the "workhorse" of it and is certainly not going to save millions of lives. Look to Rosch, Abbott, and others that have made pieces of already-deployed infrastructure to fill that need.
adrianN 7y ago
Save lives first, think about compensation after the pandemic is dealt with.
- mkagenius 7y ago
  Sure, but I am sure the government can compensate them if the government want.
- roenxi 7y ago
  What - are they couriering the money from a secure vault in Germany by barge, horse and carriage? I think not. It'd take a day or so to negotiate and then a few hours of banking transfers. Governments around the world are currently engaging in multi-billion to potentially multi-trillion dollar emergency spending programs. There is room for negotiation and cash up front while the company holds all the cards. It isn't a good idea to fight economics in this crisis; beyond cushioning people in the very short term against quarantines. It will leave everyone in a very uncomfortable place if the incentives push individuals to avoid helping in the next crisis. Or worse; avoiding the entire field. The problem with all these 'experts should give away this lifesaving X for free' ideas is that then only an idiot would try to become a medical expert - anyone smart would try to go to Wall Street where they are allowed to make crazy profits. The people working on this stuff are doing an insane amount of good. If there aren't a few billionaires minted in the medical community out of this something has gone terribly wrong - the incentives aren't there to guide resources towards preparedness.

by pen2l 7y ago

pmiller2 7y ago

I wouldn't ask. This is what eminent domain is literally for.

mlyle 7y ago
If you seize someone's company every time they have a worthwhile breakthrough, that's really going to put a damper on working on problems like this. Not only would you be toiling for uncertain/small reward, you might be flushing your entire business down the toilet. Also, you seize the company-- then what? Are you going to be able to ramp up production, etc, as well as the original product group could? Are you going to make them work on it at gunpoint?
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives right fucking now, and I'll concede you might have a point. Otherwise, you're simply trying to draw a false equivalence.
- dmarchand90 7y ago
  I agree there's a good point to this. At the same time I dislike and disbelieve the capitalist narrative that the deepest motivation is the profit one.
  - darawk 7y ago
    It's not that the deepest motivation is the profit one. It's that it's the best at bringing together large scale consistent cooperative teams. When you have a profit motive, you don't need to convince every single necessary person or resource provider to believe in your mission, you just have to pay them. And that makes a lot of things possible that wouldn't otherwise be.
mobilefriendly 7y ago
Eminent domain in the US still requires fair compensation.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Indeed, a 20% return would be more than fair, wouldn’t it? So, pay off their development costs + 20%.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    Oh yah, that makes a lot of sense. /s IF you succeed, you get upside bounded at +20%, but you still have full downside risk. And of course, most things in bio R&D don't work. Also, re: your other hyperbole point-- this test system is neat and fills a small gap in testing capabilities. It does not have the ability to "save millions of lives" but could be a nice tool among many to help slow things down. It doesn't scale well, so it's not how you'll do most tests, but there are scenarios where having a close-to-immediate result noticeably helps. > Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives ... The past century is littered with thousands of examples of technologies that have contributed in this or bigger ways. The Rosch and Abbott machines are going to be the workhorses here, not the Cepheid ones.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      No, you make 20% and save millions of lives. Identifying and quarantining the infected is literally the only tool we have now to slow this pandemic.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        It seems you missed both points: * "Making" 20% if you happen to be successful, when most efforts fail, is not much of a prize-- especially if you lose your company in the process. Not even the most diehard gambler would play slots with those rules. ;) * It's not going to save millions of lives. There's lots of tests available meeting different needs. It may save some lives, and will likely improve quality of life of those suspected of having COVID-19 quite a bit. Identifying and quarantining is a complicated strategy and this test is not going to be the "workhorse" of it and is certainly not going to save millions of lives. Look to Rosch, Abbott, and others that have made pieces of already-deployed infrastructure to fill that need.

adrianN 7y ago

Save lives first, think about compensation after the pandemic is dealt with.

mkagenius 7y ago
Sure, but I am sure the government can compensate them if the government want.
roenxi 7y ago
What - are they couriering the money from a secure vault in Germany by barge, horse and carriage? I think not. It'd take a day or so to negotiate and then a few hours of banking transfers. Governments around the world are currently engaging in multi-billion to potentially multi-trillion dollar emergency spending programs. There is room for negotiation and cash up front while the company holds all the cards. It isn't a good idea to fight economics in this crisis; beyond cushioning people in the very short term against quarantines. It will leave everyone in a very uncomfortable place if the incentives push individuals to avoid helping in the next crisis. Or worse; avoiding the entire field. The problem with all these 'experts should give away this lifesaving X for free' ideas is that then only an idiot would try to become a medical expert - anyone smart would try to go to Wall Street where they are allowed to make crazy profits. The people working on this stuff are doing an insane amount of good. If there aren't a few billionaires minted in the medical community out of this something has gone terribly wrong - the incentives aren't there to guide resources towards preparedness.