2 ms·
> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck Would Merck have done the research if they didn't get to own the patent?
by parineum 5y ago
> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck
Would Merck have done the research if they didn't get to own the patent?
- photochemsyn 5y agoMerck didn't do the research, Emory did the research. Now, maybe you're thinking, would Merck finance the clinical trial of like 1000 people if they didn't get exclusive licensing right to the Emory-owned patent? Well, perhaps in a non-exclusive licensing situation, other pharma outfits, or a consortion, or how about the federal government? would pay for the clinical trials. I'd guess this situation - competitive manufacturing - would result in a massive drop in the price of the drug for people who needed it.
- parineum 5y ago> or how about the federal government This is the answer I was fishing for. If you want the government to own the patents, they should do the work. If they outsource some of the work in exchange for the patents, perhaps the work that they are outsourcing is specialized and difficult for them to achieve.
- labawi 5y agoSay you owned the patent, the research was solid, high likelihood it would work, but needed a 1000 patient phase 3 trial and whatever, that you can't and don't know how to do. Would you "outsource"¹ the work for price of an exclusive right to make the drug? Would you ask for something in return? Remember, it is we - the people - that have the right and resources, and in our name our representatives distribute them to researchers and make the deals with salesmen. ¹ more like sell the businness * Personally not from US, wanted to show the framing. In any case, most research is an international effort, so maybe I shouldn't completely exclude myself.