7 ms·

How would a "waiver" work? Last I understood about law, a country can't take away the rights of companies (or people) without their consent or modifying the pa

How would a "waiver" work? Last I understood about law, a country can't take away the rights of companies (or people) without their consent or modifying the patent laws. Or is this a matter where because it has to do with overseas patent protection, the US could decline to enforce certain agreements? And don't companies have patent protection in every country they seek to do business anyway?

Kliment 5y ago
NIH (a US government run institution) holds the main patents on mRNA technology.
- refurb 5y ago
  No, the NIH helped with the spike protein sequence. There are plenty of other parents needed to make the actual vaccine.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    If you are knowledgeable on this, please could you write a short list of the total amount of patents the vaccine currently consists of, or link to a good source?
    - refurb 5y ago
      That’s not easy information to get. Startups pay a lot of money to do a “freedom to operate” study to see what patents are out there and who owns what. You can pay companies for high level info, but it’s not easy at all.
      - meepmorp 5y ago
        You did say > There are plenty of other parents needed to make the actual vaccine So asking for the other patents involved is a reasonable question, especially since your assertion presumably involves knowing - at least vaguely - what said patents might be.
    - blywi 5y ago
      This is good summary of the intellectual property situation for mRNA vaccine. The link was posted 2 weeks ago on the Twitter stream of Katalin Kariko, pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology and VP at BioNTech. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/11/mrna-ip-competitive-landscape-one-year-covid-19-pandemic-part/id=132130/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/11/mrna-ip-competitive-la... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/21/mrna-ip-competitive-landscape-translate-bio-arcturus-etherna-startups-lnp-technology-part-ii/id=132287/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/21/mrna-ip-competitive-la... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/30/mrna-patent-competitive-landscape-pioneers-litigation-outlook-big-pharmas-next-moves-part-iii/id=132936/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/30/mrna-patent-competitiv...
- Teracotage 5y ago
  I thought it is the German couple behind mRNA, no? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-v... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00119-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00119-8
- DrAwdeOccarim 5y ago
  The NIH has claims on the 2P mutation in the spike that appears to make it better. Cellscript holds the N1mPsi patent (may not be essential, watch for CureVac p3 read out soon). The ionizable lipids currently have composition of matter coverage for a few companies, which is probably the crux of the discussion. Everything else is confidential know-how, which is already scaling as fast. I'm not sure exactly what this gets anyone...
titoCA321 5y ago
Doesn't really matter, waiver or not. It's not like most industries or people can go about making this vaccines themselves. That's why I sometimes laugh about these folks that what to invalidate patents and have everything in the open. If Toyota posted schematics of their trucks online, do you think, you and I could build one without throwing resources, time, and money down a toilet? I would have better luck growing my own lettuce and raising my own cows to beat McDonald's at the hamburger game.
- double-a 5y ago
  Cool. So then these companies should have nothing to fear.
  - tobessebot 5y ago
    They rightly fear that in 2-3 years, when the pandemic is likely over everywhere and other people have figured out how to commercialize the IP, they won't be the only ones producing their vaccines. This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term and there'll be more than enough doses for every person on Earth by next year. Why should they not retain the IP rights to make a profit on new generations that need to be vaccinated or potential booster shots? The manufacturing capacity will have been built up so scarcity won't be a problem at that point.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      Is it reasonable to believe that the knowledge that the USA doesn't intend to support the pursuit of damages for patent violation would have an impact on manufacturers now. If you held a firm conviction that in the near future you'd be able to act on the IP without being in violation, would you be more motivate to progress toward doing so more swiftly? As a patent holder, would you feel more secure that you could issue cease and desist notices and peruse damages after the waiver is lifted?
    - beckman466 5y ago
      > This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term Why not? I’m not hearing a clear argument or evidence to support that withholding the patent recipe wouldn’t save millions of lives? India now has a very high number of cases. As it stands now, your argument just sounds to me like: “yes human lives, but... profit“. Please could you elaborate on your argument and/or provide examples of what you’re describing happening in other cases?
PeterisP 5y ago
> a country can't take away the rights of companies (or people) without their consent or modifying the patent laws. That's not a problem, modifying laws is the default way how countries do things - if a country says "we'll do X" they most likely mean "we'll modify our laws so that X will happen". But IIRC the patent laws of many countries already contain specific clauses for a simplified process to void patents for lifesaving reasons if they want to do it. And it's worth noting that patents aren't a right, it's a privilege selectively granted by the government because the government expects that the process as a whole benefits the general society (by facilitating innovation and publishing of technical innovations instead of hiding them), not because the patent owners have a right to require it. The government does not have to offer patent protection; it chooses to grant a temporary monopoly for a limited time if certain conditions are met, and it can (essentially arbitrarily) decide what those conditions are.
celticninja 5y ago
https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/865888/patents-and-the-indian-pharmaceutical-industry https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/865888/patents-and-the-i...
vkou 5y ago
A country can take away whatever rights it wants to within its borders. That's the whole point of sovereignty. Patent laws are also not some natural, inalienable right. They are artificial constructs, provided as a courtesy, because the government feels that in the general case, they are more beneficial than harmful. In a particular case, they might be more harmful than beneficial.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > Patent laws [...] are artificial constructs What do you make of the move corporations are making away from the use of patents, towards the use of a hybrid ‘trade secret + patent‘ sandwich? Is there a scenario where it does not stifle innovation? I’m asking because I personally don’t see any. As you said these systems are artificial constructs, and at the worst this taking away as trade secrets is theft on an enormous scale. The internet allows mass collaboration, and I believe we are still in the very early stages of developing this infrastructure. Elaboration on what exactly I mean by ‘patent + trade secret’ sandwich here: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
  - vkou 5y ago
    > What do you make of the move corporations are making away from the use of patents, towards the use of a hybrid ‘trade secret + patent‘ sandwich? Is there a scenario where it does not stifle innovation? I take that it's not happening to the extent claimed, and that those claims are largely self-serving propaganda used as justification for a legal land-grab. Of course patent owners are going to argue that their patents should be valid for fifty thousand years, with the figleaf that it protects 'innovation'. What else would they say? That they'd like IP law tilted in their favour because it would make them more money?
    - beckman466 5y ago
      > I take that it's not happening to the extent claimed, and that those claims are largely self-serving propaganda used as justification for a legal land-grab. Really? What you are basing this off of?
bumbada 5y ago
Patents are monopolies give by States. In fact in the past, in countries like France, patents were sold to the highest bidder, like the patent for manufacturing straw baskets or ceramic containers. Basically, if you did not pay the King,or someone else paid the King more, the State will destroy your business. The modern idea of patents comes from that, adding the requirement to document an innovation instead of just paying money to the King. The State can do end the monopoly at any given time. They have done lots of times in the past, specially in wars.
- beckman466 5y ago
  Patents are a distraction tactic, including this move by the US. The real power that corporations exert today comes from trade secrets (laws/system): > Hiding inventions as trade secrets acts to protect these huge multinational corporations [...] This is the reason that huge multinationals lobby so hard for strong trade secret laws and weak patent laws. This is clearly shown in Musk’s low valuation of his patents and high valuation of trade secrets. > Trade secret protection for inventions that could otherwise be patented is bad public policy because it stifles the progress of innovation [as the knowledge does not end up in the public domain as happens when patent claims expire] and it consolidates money, markets and power into a few huge corporations [...] The author in this article goes into more detail on the pattern (and history) of human discovery and scientific breakthroughs by using some great examples like the development of the sewing machine, as well as Musk’s purchase of the trade secrets of Maxwell Technologies. Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
AmericanChopper 5y ago
Waiver is a euphemism that implies the states discussing this own the patents. It would more accurately be described as a confiscation. It also seems like the best way to ensure the next pandemic doesn’t get a vaccine.
jffry 5y ago
I believe that yes, the angle on this is overseas patent protection, as moderated by the WTO. This "waiver" seems like it would essentially be the WTO member states unanimously agreeing that they won't be using any of the usual tools / threats of sanctions they could normally bring to bear as a collective to squash violations of IP for these patents. The US cannot act unilaterally in this regard - the WTO members would all have to agree to it for it to work effectively - but the US staking out its position may help to drive a consensus position.

Kliment 5y ago

NIH (a US government run institution) holds the main patents on mRNA technology.

refurb 5y ago
No, the NIH helped with the spike protein sequence. There are plenty of other parents needed to make the actual vaccine.
- beckman466 5y ago
  If you are knowledgeable on this, please could you write a short list of the total amount of patents the vaccine currently consists of, or link to a good source?
  - refurb 5y ago
    That’s not easy information to get. Startups pay a lot of money to do a “freedom to operate” study to see what patents are out there and who owns what. You can pay companies for high level info, but it’s not easy at all.
    - meepmorp 5y ago
      You did say > There are plenty of other parents needed to make the actual vaccine So asking for the other patents involved is a reasonable question, especially since your assertion presumably involves knowing - at least vaguely - what said patents might be.
  - blywi 5y ago
    This is good summary of the intellectual property situation for mRNA vaccine. The link was posted 2 weeks ago on the Twitter stream of Katalin Kariko, pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology and VP at BioNTech. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/11/mrna-ip-competitive-landscape-one-year-covid-19-pandemic-part/id=132130/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/11/mrna-ip-competitive-la... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/21/mrna-ip-competitive-landscape-translate-bio-arcturus-etherna-startups-lnp-technology-part-ii/id=132287/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/21/mrna-ip-competitive-la... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/30/mrna-patent-competitive-landscape-pioneers-litigation-outlook-big-pharmas-next-moves-part-iii/id=132936/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/30/mrna-patent-competitiv...
Teracotage 5y ago
I thought it is the German couple behind mRNA, no? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-v... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00119-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00119-8
DrAwdeOccarim 5y ago
The NIH has claims on the 2P mutation in the spike that appears to make it better. Cellscript holds the N1mPsi patent (may not be essential, watch for CureVac p3 read out soon). The ionizable lipids currently have composition of matter coverage for a few companies, which is probably the crux of the discussion. Everything else is confidential know-how, which is already scaling as fast. I'm not sure exactly what this gets anyone...

titoCA321 5y ago

Doesn't really matter, waiver or not. It's not like most industries or people can go about making this vaccines themselves. That's why I sometimes laugh about these folks that what to invalidate patents and have everything in the open. If Toyota posted schematics of their trucks online, do you think, you and I could build one without throwing resources, time, and money down a toilet? I would have better luck growing my own lettuce and raising my own cows to beat McDonald's at the hamburger game.

double-a 5y ago
Cool. So then these companies should have nothing to fear.
- tobessebot 5y ago
  They rightly fear that in 2-3 years, when the pandemic is likely over everywhere and other people have figured out how to commercialize the IP, they won't be the only ones producing their vaccines. This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term and there'll be more than enough doses for every person on Earth by next year. Why should they not retain the IP rights to make a profit on new generations that need to be vaccinated or potential booster shots? The manufacturing capacity will have been built up so scarcity won't be a problem at that point.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Is it reasonable to believe that the knowledge that the USA doesn't intend to support the pursuit of damages for patent violation would have an impact on manufacturers now. If you held a firm conviction that in the near future you'd be able to act on the IP without being in violation, would you be more motivate to progress toward doing so more swiftly? As a patent holder, would you feel more secure that you could issue cease and desist notices and peruse damages after the waiver is lifted?
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term Why not? I’m not hearing a clear argument or evidence to support that withholding the patent recipe wouldn’t save millions of lives? India now has a very high number of cases. As it stands now, your argument just sounds to me like: “yes human lives, but... profit“. Please could you elaborate on your argument and/or provide examples of what you’re describing happening in other cases?

PeterisP 5y ago

> a country can't take away the rights of companies (or people) without their consent or modifying the patent laws. That's not a problem, modifying laws is the default way how countries do things - if a country says "we'll do X" they most likely mean "we'll modify our laws so that X will happen". But IIRC the patent laws of many countries already contain specific clauses for a simplified process to void patents for lifesaving reasons if they want to do it. And it's worth noting that patents aren't a right, it's a privilege selectively granted by the government because the government expects that the process as a whole benefits the general society (by facilitating innovation and publishing of technical innovations instead of hiding them), not because the patent owners have a right to require it. The government does not have to offer patent protection; it chooses to grant a temporary monopoly for a limited time if certain conditions are met, and it can (essentially arbitrarily) decide what those conditions are.

celticninja 5y ago

https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/865888/patents-and-the-indian-pharmaceutical-industry https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/865888/patents-and-the-i...

vkou 5y ago

A country can take away whatever rights it wants to within its borders. That's the whole point of sovereignty. Patent laws are also not some natural, inalienable right. They are artificial constructs, provided as a courtesy, because the government feels that in the general case, they are more beneficial than harmful. In a particular case, they might be more harmful than beneficial.

beckman466 5y ago
> Patent laws [...] are artificial constructs What do you make of the move corporations are making away from the use of patents, towards the use of a hybrid ‘trade secret + patent‘ sandwich? Is there a scenario where it does not stifle innovation? I’m asking because I personally don’t see any. As you said these systems are artificial constructs, and at the worst this taking away as trade secrets is theft on an enormous scale. The internet allows mass collaboration, and I believe we are still in the very early stages of developing this infrastructure. Elaboration on what exactly I mean by ‘patent + trade secret’ sandwich here: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
- vkou 5y ago
  > What do you make of the move corporations are making away from the use of patents, towards the use of a hybrid ‘trade secret + patent‘ sandwich? Is there a scenario where it does not stifle innovation? I take that it's not happening to the extent claimed, and that those claims are largely self-serving propaganda used as justification for a legal land-grab. Of course patent owners are going to argue that their patents should be valid for fifty thousand years, with the figleaf that it protects 'innovation'. What else would they say? That they'd like IP law tilted in their favour because it would make them more money?
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > I take that it's not happening to the extent claimed, and that those claims are largely self-serving propaganda used as justification for a legal land-grab. Really? What you are basing this off of?

bumbada 5y ago

Patents are monopolies give by States. In fact in the past, in countries like France, patents were sold to the highest bidder, like the patent for manufacturing straw baskets or ceramic containers. Basically, if you did not pay the King,or someone else paid the King more, the State will destroy your business. The modern idea of patents comes from that, adding the requirement to document an innovation instead of just paying money to the King. The State can do end the monopoly at any given time. They have done lots of times in the past, specially in wars.

beckman466 5y ago
Patents are a distraction tactic, including this move by the US. The real power that corporations exert today comes from trade secrets (laws/system): > Hiding inventions as trade secrets acts to protect these huge multinational corporations [...] This is the reason that huge multinationals lobby so hard for strong trade secret laws and weak patent laws. This is clearly shown in Musk’s low valuation of his patents and high valuation of trade secrets. > Trade secret protection for inventions that could otherwise be patented is bad public policy because it stifles the progress of innovation [as the knowledge does not end up in the public domain as happens when patent claims expire] and it consolidates money, markets and power into a few huge corporations [...] The author in this article goes into more detail on the pattern (and history) of human discovery and scientific breakthroughs by using some great examples like the development of the sewing machine, as well as Musk’s purchase of the trade secrets of Maxwell Technologies. Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...

AmericanChopper 5y ago

Waiver is a euphemism that implies the states discussing this own the patents. It would more accurately be described as a confiscation. It also seems like the best way to ensure the next pandemic doesn’t get a vaccine.

jffry 5y ago

I believe that yes, the angle on this is overseas patent protection, as moderated by the WTO. This "waiver" seems like it would essentially be the WTO member states unanimously agreeing that they won't be using any of the usual tools / threats of sanctions they could normally bring to bear as a collective to squash violations of IP for these patents. The US cannot act unilaterally in this regard - the WTO members would all have to agree to it for it to work effectively - but the US staking out its position may help to drive a consensus position.