3 ms·
> I feel like this is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That is quite hyperbolic, because at worst it will reduce profits, but hardly "kill" them. >
by yokaze 5y ago
> I feel like this is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
That is quite hyperbolic, because at worst it will reduce profits, but hardly "kill" them.
> I want the companies and investors in the pharmaceuticals that have made these to become fabulously wealthy as an incentive for companies to invest in the capabilities to produce these.
The incentive to invest is the chance of future profits. Those still exists, as the technology has a lot of use-cases beyond covid-19 vaccines. The vaccine is just the show-case of that.
> The stock of these companies dropped on this announcement.
Short-term developments are hardly a good indicator for future development.
> Long term this kind of patent waiver will drive investment and at some level smart people from these companies.
You really think, losing the ability to profit more from a, hopefully, once in a century event will determine, if someone invests in something in the future? And by that not being able to profit from the technology in all the other areas they can improve?
I really doubt that.
- refurb 5y agoReally? Having the rules change in the middle of the game won’t affect investments? I mean, what if the next company comes up with a cure for AIDS. Are they confident the IP won’t be broken either?
- yokaze 5y ago> Having the rules change in the middle of the game won’t affect investments? The rules of the game change all the time. Every business plan has to take into consideration the risks/benefits of possible regulatory changes. And yes, changes will affect investment. But the hypothesis is, it will drive investment away to the extent that it will "kill the goose...". I would phrase it less hyperbolic as "in a significant way". To reiterate: We are talking here (up to now) a about once in a life-time event. And that is both the Covid crisis, as well as being able to profit from. > I mean, what if the next company comes up with a cure for AIDS. Are they confident the IP won’t be broken either? So the classical slippery slope argument. The whole point why governments are bringing the option on the table is, because it is an exceptional event. So, it doesn't translate to AIDS/HIV. Will people believe that? That's anyones guess. Do you believe anyone will forgo possible profits from the whole range of possibilities of treatments based on mRNA because of that precedent? I seriously doubt that. I do not see those risks, but then I also do not see much the benefit either. It isn't like just the patents are the limiting factor, and you could ramp up a production of those vaccines from one day to the other.