4 ms·

Is that supposed to make someone angry? Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments and still allow cheaper access for poorer nations. St

by ketzu 6y ago

Is that supposed to make someone angry? Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments and still allow cheaper access for poorer nations. Still if they can't keep up with demand and there are many lifes at stake, we should probably legislate a compensated invalidation of such a patent.

vertex-four 6y ago
The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture.
- ketzu 6y ago
  > The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. Sorry, my statement on legislation was ambigious. First, "we" was meant as "we the people of our respective countries," not limited to the US in any way. Secondly, it would probably create some international problems, so a combined effort would be nice. But I think companies should be compensated in such a case (hence "compensated invalidation") in a way that a company can reasonably accept. > This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture. I didn't claim that. I said it seems like an okay solution to that challenge (to me). This is independent from who came up with the idea. As I felt it was phrased in a whay to supposedly make a reader angry, I questioned why that should be the case. Maybe that was over-interpreted by me. For the same reason I would accept this as an actual goodwill gesture. I have no trouble with the idea that richer countries have to pay more for making the development worthwhile and poorer countries benefiting from that at a cheaper price, as it seems like the humane thing to do to me.
- redanddead 6y ago
  "goodwill" I'm certain that the CEO knows just how fickle the patent is and wants to maintain as much control, gain as much money, favors etc while reducing risks, liability, losses etc.
walls 6y ago
> Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments The investment was made by the American people paying taxes. The profits will be privatized. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivir-coronavirus-taxpayers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivi...
- majewsky 6y ago
  It's disingenious to frame like the public paid for the whole research. This articles talks about 70 million dollars in public money invested. Bringing a drug to market has a total R&D bill on the order of billions of dollars.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Based on your link, various American government agencies contributed $70MM to the R&D of remdesivir. While I can't find the total R&D cost for this particular drug, the average R&D cost for bringing a new drug to market is about $1BN [1]. Draw your own conclusions. [1] https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/new-drug-cost-research-development-market-jama-study/573381/ https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/new-drug-cost-research-de...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Pandemic aside, the US government shouldn’t get a better deal than any other investor. If you invest “tens of millions” into drugs that will cost “billions” to bring to market, you don’t get to get the drug for free. Imagine a Silicon Valley investor proposing those terms: we’ll invest $1 million in your startup for 75% of the equity. But that’s exactly what people are proposing when they say a few tens of millions of government funding should buy free access to patented technology that takes hundreds of millions to bring to market.
  - awinder 6y ago
    I don’t think people are asking for “free”, they’re asking for “at cost”, or some sort of bulk deal. There is actually a lot of precedent for that in SV deals, for one people get some return on investment (the bulk order discount / profit cut deal). Second you get deal modifiers like facebooks sweetheart ad deal for Microsoft’s 240M funding round, which might be akin to “if we fund this thing we need you to work with us if we’re all about to die without it”. Truly good/fair solution probably exists between nationalizing Gilead and Gileads opening bid.

by ketzu 6y ago

vertex-four 6y ago

The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture.

ketzu 6y ago
> The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. Sorry, my statement on legislation was ambigious. First, "we" was meant as "we the people of our respective countries," not limited to the US in any way. Secondly, it would probably create some international problems, so a combined effort would be nice. But I think companies should be compensated in such a case (hence "compensated invalidation") in a way that a company can reasonably accept. > This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture. I didn't claim that. I said it seems like an okay solution to that challenge (to me). This is independent from who came up with the idea. As I felt it was phrased in a whay to supposedly make a reader angry, I questioned why that should be the case. Maybe that was over-interpreted by me. For the same reason I would accept this as an actual goodwill gesture. I have no trouble with the idea that richer countries have to pay more for making the development worthwhile and poorer countries benefiting from that at a cheaper price, as it seems like the humane thing to do to me.
redanddead 6y ago
"goodwill" I'm certain that the CEO knows just how fickle the patent is and wants to maintain as much control, gain as much money, favors etc while reducing risks, liability, losses etc.

walls 6y ago

> Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments The investment was made by the American people paying taxes. The profits will be privatized. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivir-coronavirus-taxpayers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivi...

majewsky 6y ago
It's disingenious to frame like the public paid for the whole research. This articles talks about 70 million dollars in public money invested. Bringing a drug to market has a total R&D bill on the order of billions of dollars.
credit_guy 6y ago
Based on your link, various American government agencies contributed $70MM to the R&D of remdesivir. While I can't find the total R&D cost for this particular drug, the average R&D cost for bringing a new drug to market is about $1BN [1]. Draw your own conclusions. [1] https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/new-drug-cost-research-development-market-jama-study/573381/ https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/new-drug-cost-research-de...
rayiner 6y ago
Pandemic aside, the US government shouldn’t get a better deal than any other investor. If you invest “tens of millions” into drugs that will cost “billions” to bring to market, you don’t get to get the drug for free. Imagine a Silicon Valley investor proposing those terms: we’ll invest $1 million in your startup for 75% of the equity. But that’s exactly what people are proposing when they say a few tens of millions of government funding should buy free access to patented technology that takes hundreds of millions to bring to market.
- awinder 6y ago
  I don’t think people are asking for “free”, they’re asking for “at cost”, or some sort of bulk deal. There is actually a lot of precedent for that in SV deals, for one people get some return on investment (the bulk order discount / profit cut deal). Second you get deal modifiers like facebooks sweetheart ad deal for Microsoft’s 240M funding round, which might be akin to “if we fund this thing we need you to work with us if we’re all about to die without it”. Truly good/fair solution probably exists between nationalizing Gilead and Gileads opening bid.