6 ms·

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.

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.