3 ms·

AIUI they have no patent protection on their vaccines, but rather on some patented inventions (processes or whatever). That is, there is no requirement to make

by Arnt 5y ago

AIUI they have no patent protection on their vaccines, but rather on some patented inventions (processes or whatever). That is, there is no requirement to make a product from exactly one single invention, or to disclose details of unpatented processes or parts of a product. Do you think there should be such a requirement?

eganist 5y ago
so to simplify: they have patent protection on some elements of the vaccine, but the formulation or method for formulation (i.e recipe) is a trade secret? am I understanding correctly? because if so, then yeah it doesn't seem like Moderna's actually doing anything wrong.
gpm 5y ago
Part of the benefit of making a moral argument (rather than a legal one), is I can avoid giving an exact test for what should and shouldn't be patentable. Yes, I think there should be some minimal "unit of invention", and that in this case it's pretty clearly the vaccine as a whole. "Part of the vaccine" isn't of benefit to society, so disclosing how to make that isn't meeting your end of the bargain. Yes, I also think that there are probably other cases where a single product has two unrelated subsystems, and it makes sense you could have patents on both of them. For example in a cell phone, a different patent on the antenna and the barometer would make sense, since they really haven nothing to do with eachother and disclosure of each individually benefits society.
- Arnt 5y ago
  Is that clear? The contrapositive of that is that Moderna invented nothing in its first nine or ten years — none of the research that led to this vaccine counts as a patentable invention.
  - gpm 5y ago
    Morally, yes. A patent needs to have utility for the quid quo pro to make any sense, it's the end products that have utility. Patenting necessary intermediates without disclosing the end products serves to retard innovation by everyone else without giving them the reward once the temporary monopoly expires. Legally, I would not be at all surprised to find out you were right.
    - Arnt 5y ago
      Not clear to me what end product they should have disclosed in March 2017.

by Arnt 5y ago

eganist 5y ago

so to simplify: they have patent protection on some elements of the vaccine, but the formulation or method for formulation (i.e recipe) is a trade secret? am I understanding correctly? because if so, then yeah it doesn't seem like Moderna's actually doing anything wrong.

gpm 5y ago

Part of the benefit of making a moral argument (rather than a legal one), is I can avoid giving an exact test for what should and shouldn't be patentable. Yes, I think there should be some minimal "unit of invention", and that in this case it's pretty clearly the vaccine as a whole. "Part of the vaccine" isn't of benefit to society, so disclosing how to make that isn't meeting your end of the bargain. Yes, I also think that there are probably other cases where a single product has two unrelated subsystems, and it makes sense you could have patents on both of them. For example in a cell phone, a different patent on the antenna and the barometer would make sense, since they really haven nothing to do with eachother and disclosure of each individually benefits society.

Arnt 5y ago
Is that clear? The contrapositive of that is that Moderna invented nothing in its first nine or ten years — none of the research that led to this vaccine counts as a patentable invention.
- gpm 5y ago
  Morally, yes. A patent needs to have utility for the quid quo pro to make any sense, it's the end products that have utility. Patenting necessary intermediates without disclosing the end products serves to retard innovation by everyone else without giving them the reward once the temporary monopoly expires. Legally, I would not be at all surprised to find out you were right.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Not clear to me what end product they should have disclosed in March 2017.