6 ms·

Why would Pfizer drop a few billion on getting the vaccine to market if the funders would then relicense it?

• tsimionescu 4y ago
  Because they could make more than $XB by selling it afterwards? Also, who's to say that Pfizer can't make an additional deal, or funding, for this effort?
  • junofan 4y ago
    How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      You can't sell something without exclusivity now?
      • junofan 4y ago
        Who funds development? You can’t sell a product that does not exist.
        • tsimionescu 4y ago
          You're going in circles. We were discussing a vaccine that was discovered with most funding coming from charities (B&M Gates foundation) or the state (NIH), and some by Pfizer. But, Pfizer gets to keep 100% of the results of this research. Now, if by "development" you mean the cost of mass manufacturing and marketing the substance, then every company that wants to manufacture it can find their own, which will be payed for by, you know, sales.
          • junofan 4y ago
            Development means clinical testing, preparation and submission of applications for FDA approval, as well as design of production processes for new drugs. Here’s an accessible overview from the CBO: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
            • tsimionescu 4y ago
              How is this relevant to the topic at hand, of licensing the base molecule (not the finished drug) to multiple companies?
      • refurb 4y ago
        You can't come close to recouping development costs if Joe Blow down the street can copy it and charge cost-of-goods plus 10%.
    • teaearlgraycold 4y ago
      Governments should not just fund drug and vaccine research. They should employ most of the researchers and own most of the labs. Problem solved. Give a hundred billion to vaccine research and then release it to the public with a mandated price - job complete.
      • junofan 4y ago
        What about development?
        • teaearlgraycold 4y ago
          Basically I’m saying they should make a finished solution but leave distribution and full scale manufacturing to private industry. Not because private will do that part better, but because at that point there’s not much need to use taxes to finish the job. What drug manufacturer wouldn’t want the contract to exclusively sell an already developed product? All they need to do is follow FDA regulations and pricing.
          • junofan 4y ago
            “Making a finished solution” is the really, really expensive part. How does the government allocate limited resources in your model?
            • tsimionescu 4y ago
              Either development is the tricky part, in which case it would be irrelevant if the formula is public, since another company won't be able to compete just by knowing the formula, they also have to fund development of their own; or the basic research is the problem, in which case development is a minor expense and should be covered by the sales. Either way, making the results of research that has already been funded by charities, the state etc public should be mandatory, and would still leave these companies with plenty of profits.
              • 4y ago
    • Guthur 4y ago
      They acquire the rights i don't think they fund much. Why these diseases are serious enough to lock us all in our fucking homes but yet rampant profiteering is allowed is a travesty. The entire state and industry hand in hand, defacto fascism.
      • junofan 4y ago
        Here’s their pipeline snapshot [1]. Pfizer’s 12-month R&D spend was $14.712 billion at last reporting. [1]: https://www.pfizer.com/science/drug-product-pipeline https://www.pfizer.com/science/drug-product-pipeline
    • jrockway 4y ago
      Why would RedHat develop Linux when Debian gives it away for free?
      • wbl 4y ago
        Debian doesn't have to spend a billion bucks to convince Uncle Sam to let you download it.
    • headsoup 4y ago
      It's funny about that. I listened to an interview with Bourla where he said both that they need the patents for a return on investment/protect their IP and that it would take over a year for a competitor to scale up and release the product after they have released it so it's tricky. Cake and eat it.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]