3 ms·

> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck How about a proportional slice? That would seem fair. IP and products can hav

> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck How about a proportional slice? That would seem fair. IP and products can have fractional ownership.

mhb 5y ago
What does "fair" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that your proposal maximizes the amount of health-improving interventions that society will receive in the future? Do you have any reason to conclude that what you're suggesting will be even a slight improvement?
- loeg 5y ago
  As a taxpayer / healthcare consumer who is not employed in pharma -- yeah, it would be nice if we (the US) did a little less subsidizing of drug development for the rest of the world. Proportional ownership of sponsored drugs seems like a nicely aligned incentive. What am I missing?
  - mhb 5y ago
    I don't know how the pharma industry decides what to pursue, but it is at least plausible that part of the incentive for what they do depends on being able to price discriminate in sales to other countries. Before suggesting we tear down Chesterton's fence, it seems reasonable that you should have more justification than just that it seems fair to you.
    - loeg 5y ago
      I don't understand your concern -- how does proportional ownership eliminate pharma's ability to price discriminate? I just think the US government should receive some prorated portion of profits from drugs they subsidized development of, which can be reinvested into further development.
      - mhb 5y ago
        These are separate issues. You said that the US is subsidizing drug development for other countries and suggested that you would prefer that we didn't. That affects drug development incentives. You're also saying that the US government should have some of the profits that the drug companies currently have. Presumably this would affect something that drug companies do. Shouldn't you be concerned that the thing it will affect is them developing new drugs? Maybe the current situation isn't optimal but there's no reason to think that your suggestions would improve things.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  You’re sounding rather aggressive. It seems reasonable that if I finance X% of something, I get to enjoy X% of it. Or Y%, adjusted for non-monetary investment by someone else. It seems strange that the state finances (drug development) research, the companies say “cheers” and proceed to keep all the profits. Such profits could for example go towards universal health care improvements.
  - mhb 5y ago
    Maybe we want different things from the US government and its health care system. I'd like to optimize health outcomes. You have some proposals. Can you explain how they lead to something better than the status quo? What are the unintended consequences? Do drug companies invest in less drug development if they get X% less from developing drugs? Have you taken this into account in your advocacy for enjoying the X%? Or maybe you have a different objective?
photochemsyn 5y ago
Ultimately the issue is the licensing of the patent (which is likely retained by Emory or its non-profit affiliate), and under Bayh-Dole universities can exclusively license it. By introducing non-exclusive licensing, then you have a competitive situation in which the lower-cost manufacturer can provide the drug more cheaply but at the same quality and monopolistic pricing schedules cannot be introduced by the likes of Merck. The taxpayer benefit is lower cost of drugs invented with taxpayer funds.

> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck How about a proportional slice? That would seem fair. IP and products can have fractional ownership.

mhb 5y ago

What does "fair" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that your proposal maximizes the amount of health-improving interventions that society will receive in the future? Do you have any reason to conclude that what you're suggesting will be even a slight improvement?

loeg 5y ago
As a taxpayer / healthcare consumer who is not employed in pharma -- yeah, it would be nice if we (the US) did a little less subsidizing of drug development for the rest of the world. Proportional ownership of sponsored drugs seems like a nicely aligned incentive. What am I missing?
- mhb 5y ago
  I don't know how the pharma industry decides what to pursue, but it is at least plausible that part of the incentive for what they do depends on being able to price discriminate in sales to other countries. Before suggesting we tear down Chesterton's fence, it seems reasonable that you should have more justification than just that it seems fair to you.
  - loeg 5y ago
    I don't understand your concern -- how does proportional ownership eliminate pharma's ability to price discriminate? I just think the US government should receive some prorated portion of profits from drugs they subsidized development of, which can be reinvested into further development.
    - mhb 5y ago
      These are separate issues. You said that the US is subsidizing drug development for other countries and suggested that you would prefer that we didn't. That affects drug development incentives. You're also saying that the US government should have some of the profits that the drug companies currently have. Presumably this would affect something that drug companies do. Shouldn't you be concerned that the thing it will affect is them developing new drugs? Maybe the current situation isn't optimal but there's no reason to think that your suggestions would improve things.
rich_sasha 5y ago
You’re sounding rather aggressive. It seems reasonable that if I finance X% of something, I get to enjoy X% of it. Or Y%, adjusted for non-monetary investment by someone else. It seems strange that the state finances (drug development) research, the companies say “cheers” and proceed to keep all the profits. Such profits could for example go towards universal health care improvements.
- mhb 5y ago
  Maybe we want different things from the US government and its health care system. I'd like to optimize health outcomes. You have some proposals. Can you explain how they lead to something better than the status quo? What are the unintended consequences? Do drug companies invest in less drug development if they get X% less from developing drugs? Have you taken this into account in your advocacy for enjoying the X%? Or maybe you have a different objective?

photochemsyn 5y ago

Ultimately the issue is the licensing of the patent (which is likely retained by Emory or its non-profit affiliate), and under Bayh-Dole universities can exclusively license it. By introducing non-exclusive licensing, then you have a competitive situation in which the lower-cost manufacturer can provide the drug more cheaply but at the same quality and monopolistic pricing schedules cannot be introduced by the likes of Merck. The taxpayer benefit is lower cost of drugs invented with taxpayer funds.