4 ms·
it's not about the scientist overestimating the value of their inventions, when you pour in years and millions of dollars on research like this you just don't g
by kayone 11y ago
it's not about the scientist overestimating the value of their inventions, when you pour in years and millions of dollars on research like this you just don't give it away for pretty much nothing. 200K _might_ be considerable amount in personal finance, but when you enter the world of governments and research it's basically a rounding error. 200K? you might've as well given it away for free. When a bureaucrat sells something like this for so cheap all it tells me is they just wanted to pad a cell in one of their spreadsheet quarter of a percent with no regards on the investment and effort that was put into the project.
- gohrt 11y agoGiving it away for nothing would be fine -- put it in the public domain for anyone to use how they can. But selling a monopoly right for $200K? That's stealing from the taxpayers -- and Merck.
- wmil 11y agoPutting it in the public domain sounds great, but someone needs to conduct the human trials needed to make it safe and effective. They aren't cheap and producing a vaccine carries huge liability risks.
- nshepperd 11y agoSomeone like... the government that already spent millions developing it?
- datashaman 11y agoand how do governments get their money?
- ams6110 11y agoYour thinking soundes like an example of the "sunk costs" fallacy. It doesn't really matter what you invested. All that matters is what someone will pay for it.
- Gracana 11y agoBut if someone will only pay you a pittance for it, why not hang onto it?