4 ms·

If they did what you propose do you think it would incentivise or disincentivise companies on the future to produce medicines in that country? It seems clear t

by niij 6y ago

If they did what you propose do you think it would incentivise or disincentivise companies on the future to produce medicines in that country? It seems clear to me that a company would move out if they spent millions+ researching a vaccine only to have the government nationalize (i.e. steal) the patent. Good for regular citizens in the short term, but seriously damaging in the long term.

libertine 6y ago
This is another one of those comments that keep popping up... it's not by random chance that the majority of vaccine producers are established in Europe. This type of operations aren't simple assembly lines that can be moved around, there's a lot of incentives to be in Europe, and this has been built up in decades. No company would move out, they like Europe, a lot. There's a lot of qualified professionals, good infrastructure, and most likely good incentives to be there. What you're seeing is the reaction to a company borderline criminal actions. They overlapped contracts, they are choosing what contracts to break and which ones to not break, they are delaying processes that are compromising deliveries, and they keep trying to move products while failing to deliver their contractual obligations. It's like they are stretching the "best reasonable efforts" to the maximum.
DrNosferatu 6y ago
Europe is a whole continent. Things at this scale simply work different. And gladly so: pan-European Democracy should - but is clearly failing to - protect Citizens from the non-Humanitarian interests of "the market". There always will be companies willing to serve the commercial opportunities in a space as massive as a continent. EU bureaucrats just need to start to behave like adults. (or the Adults in the Room need to assert themselves).
DrNosferatu 6y ago
"steal"??? Who's "stealing" who? Hasn't a contract been signed, and haven't the vaccines been actually paid for? Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money) By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality. Obviously, it should still pay the agreed price per dose. Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? ...specially if we are afraid to upset important people? Doesn't this, instead, create the moral hazard that the Law, in fact, is actually optional? I'm genuinely curious to hear your (and other's) thoughts on this.
- niij 6y ago
  > Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money) > By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality If EU members provided taxpayer money to private pharma, that's a tangential issue with EU govts. The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. > Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
  - DrNosferatu 6y ago
    > The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken Yes, it was - that's exactly the case. > they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. They cannot: the EU bureaucrats were too "naive"(1) to allow the inclusion of a clause stating that everything is done in a "best effort" basis. That's exactly what AZ is shielding themselves with, to justify their failure to deliver. (however, Belgium law - which covers the EU contracts - does allow for the offended party to procure replacements and bill those costs on the offender) > But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. (...) Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages. That's the point, it is not beyond legality at all: The Doha Declaration exists _exactly for cases like this_. For Pete's sake, _there were no Olympic Games in 2020_, isn't this a significant Historical event, constituting Force Majeure? The Doha Declaration was lawfully signed, and is in force. ...unless, of course, there is some secret contract somewhere blocking it. >> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? >No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Yes indeed, and the Doha Declaration would solve that In fact, in a normal, rule-of-law and Democratic country, a blunder like this would be grounds for the stakeholders to sue for ruinous management. But recently, specially with the 2008 Crisis Austerity, and now with Vaccine-Supply-Gate, the EU appears to be some sort of Bermuda Triangle where Democracy and rule-of-law sometimes seem not to apply. And, dangerously, where people just shrug their shoulders to gross injustice - even against its own Citizens. (1) Apparently there's this German saying: You have to be smart to be this "naive".

by niij 6y ago

libertine 6y ago

This is another one of those comments that keep popping up... it's not by random chance that the majority of vaccine producers are established in Europe. This type of operations aren't simple assembly lines that can be moved around, there's a lot of incentives to be in Europe, and this has been built up in decades. No company would move out, they like Europe, a lot. There's a lot of qualified professionals, good infrastructure, and most likely good incentives to be there. What you're seeing is the reaction to a company borderline criminal actions. They overlapped contracts, they are choosing what contracts to break and which ones to not break, they are delaying processes that are compromising deliveries, and they keep trying to move products while failing to deliver their contractual obligations. It's like they are stretching the "best reasonable efforts" to the maximum.

DrNosferatu 6y ago

Europe is a whole continent. Things at this scale simply work different. And gladly so: pan-European Democracy should - but is clearly failing to - protect Citizens from the non-Humanitarian interests of "the market". There always will be companies willing to serve the commercial opportunities in a space as massive as a continent. EU bureaucrats just need to start to behave like adults. (or the Adults in the Room need to assert themselves).

DrNosferatu 6y ago

"steal"??? Who's "stealing" who? Hasn't a contract been signed, and haven't the vaccines been actually paid for? Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money) By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality. Obviously, it should still pay the agreed price per dose. Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? ...specially if we are afraid to upset important people? Doesn't this, instead, create the moral hazard that the Law, in fact, is actually optional? I'm genuinely curious to hear your (and other's) thoughts on this.

niij 6y ago
> Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money) > By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality If EU members provided taxpayer money to private pharma, that's a tangential issue with EU govts. The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. > Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
- DrNosferatu 6y ago
  > The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken Yes, it was - that's exactly the case. > they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. They cannot: the EU bureaucrats were too "naive"(1) to allow the inclusion of a clause stating that everything is done in a "best effort" basis. That's exactly what AZ is shielding themselves with, to justify their failure to deliver. (however, Belgium law - which covers the EU contracts - does allow for the offended party to procure replacements and bill those costs on the offender) > But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. (...) Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages. That's the point, it is not beyond legality at all: The Doha Declaration exists _exactly for cases like this_. For Pete's sake, _there were no Olympic Games in 2020_, isn't this a significant Historical event, constituting Force Majeure? The Doha Declaration was lawfully signed, and is in force. ...unless, of course, there is some secret contract somewhere blocking it. >> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? >No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Yes indeed, and the Doha Declaration would solve that In fact, in a normal, rule-of-law and Democratic country, a blunder like this would be grounds for the stakeholders to sue for ruinous management. But recently, specially with the 2008 Crisis Austerity, and now with Vaccine-Supply-Gate, the EU appears to be some sort of Bermuda Triangle where Democracy and rule-of-law sometimes seem not to apply. And, dangerously, where people just shrug their shoulders to gross injustice - even against its own Citizens. (1) Apparently there's this German saying: You have to be smart to be this "naive".