@quackquacksaid The fair price isn't to force someone to give away product without paying for it. The purchaser would be countries. All of which for money, labor, land, mineral rights and literally millions of other things they could give for a life saving vaccine. The reasonable expectation is that you pay for product, not receive it for free.
Since the government granted the company its monopoly, surely the government has a legitimate power to decide at what point the continued existence of the monopoly serves the People's, not just the monopoly, interests. That would include deciding what a "fair price" is since patents distort the free market.
Any Pfizer is free to negotiate with these countries using their advantages in knowledge, development and distribution of the drug. Denying them world wide patent protection merely removes an artificial advantage created by government fiat.
Gee, what ever happened to "laissez faire"? Insisting the most powerful nations in the world enforce such a market infringement that will surely result in a greater number of deaths just to prop up a private company's profits is inconsistent with any idea of limited government.
@sh76said Can't the government just buy a license from Pfizer to allow other companies to manufacture it? Pfizer is there for money, not power.
And please don't say the US government can't afford it. We're spending zillions of dollars on everything else. A few hundred million for a patent license is a rounding error.
My main concern is whether, by abridging the patent now, you make ...[text shortened]... these companies will bust their butts to develop anti-variant boosters should they become necessary.
Pfizer made $26 billion profit in the first quarter from the vaccine. I see no reason for the government to bail them out or interfere with the internal affairs of other countries in order for the company to have increased profits. Let them deal with other countries without the US government putting its heavy thumb on the scales to favor their profits over people's lives.
@no1maraudersaid Since the government granted the company its monopoly, surely the government has a legitimate power to decide at what point the continued existence of the monopoly serves the People's, not just the monopoly, interests. That would include deciding what a "fair price" is since patents distort the free market.
Any Pfizer is free to negotiate with these countries ...[text shortened]... ths just to prop up a private company's profits is inconsistent with any idea of limited government.
I can't think of a larger definition of self entitlement than countries refusing to pay the market price for a drug that will save lives during a pandemic. Probably as much as any organization or company in our lifetime Pfizer deserves accolades and financial rewards for creating protection from a pandemic. It is shocking that anyone, wouldn't at a minimum, give them the protection of a patent -- to prevent others who desire to steal their creation without paying adequately for it.
@no1maraudersaid Pfizer made $26 billion profit in the first quarter from the vaccine. I see no reason for the government to bail them out or interfere with the internal affairs of other countries in order for the company to have increased profits. Let them deal with other countries without the US government putting its heavy thumb on the scales to favor their profits over people's lives.
The US policy should be that Americans can't get product without paying for them but others can deny our companies well established patent protections and steal our goods? If that is what you are arguing, it couldn't be more stupid.
@quackquacksaid The US policy should be that Americans can't get product without paying for them but others can deny our companies well established patent protections and steal our goods? If that is what you are arguing, it couldn't be more stupid.
"Our goods"? Is Pfizer "us" now? If so, why isn't it subject to the People's will as expressed by the elected government as the rest of "us" are?
How much did Pfizer pay for the monopolistic protection that a patent entitles them to? A nominal fee worth an infinitesimal fraction of what that patent was worth.
Your logic is totally inconsistent; Pfizer should be "entitled" to worldwide patent protection without paying for it yet companies in smaller, poorer countries should have to pay Pfizer.
@quackquacksaid I can't think of a larger definition of self entitlement than countries refusing to pay the market price for a drug that will save lives during a pandemic. Probably as much as any organization or company in our lifetime Pfizer deserves accolades and financial rewards for creating protection from a pandemic. It is shocking that anyone, wouldn't at a minimum, give them th ...[text shortened]... f a patent -- to prevent others who desire to steal their creation without paying adequately for it.
There is no "market price"; Pfizer has been granted a monopoly by various governments that it didn't pay fair value for. If you ever went to ECO 101, you'd know that monopolies cause inefficiency in pricing and do not settle at a "market price". https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/2x3/tutorial/MONFRM.HTM
It is a totally bizarre claim that patent law, an act of grace on the part of the government, should be used in a way that insures many people will die. Only a total moral degenerate would insist on putting one company's profits over millions of lives.
@no1maraudersaid "Our goods"? Is Pfizer "us" now? If so, why isn't it subject to the People's will as expressed by the elected government as the rest of "us" are?
How much did Pfizer pay for the monopolistic protection that a patent entitles them to? A nominal fee worth an infinitesimal fraction of what that patent was worth.
Your logic is totally inconsistent; Pfizer should be "ent ...[text shortened]... otection without paying for it yet companies in smaller, poorer countries should have to pay Pfizer.
If you develop a product you should get to patent it and sell it to all others. The world can then decide whether they wish to have your product at the price you sell it or live without it. When governments ignore the rights of the those who develop goods and take it for themselves it should be viewed as an unlawful taking. It both denies the creators the fruits of their labors and decrease the incentives of others to great these essential life saving goods. Your idea that a small company in a poorer country can just takes Pfizer's patent is as absurd as arguing that a poor country should be able to break into your house and steal your laptop.
@quackquacksaid If you develop a product you should get to patent it and sell it to all others. The world can then decide whether they wish to have your product at the price you sell it or live without it. When governments ignore the rights of the those who develop goods and take it for themselves it should be viewed as an unlawful taking. It both denies the creators the fruits of t ...[text shortened]... absurd as arguing that a poor country should be able to break into your house and steal your laptop.
Your idea is absurd; there is no "right" to patent anything - it is an act of grace by a government done for public purposes. If the continuation of a patent is going to do far more harm than good (as is the case here), the government has an undoubted legitimate power to put limits on the patent or withdraw it entirely. The parameters of patent law are based on public needs, not on any non-existent "right" to patent.
@no1maraudersaid Your idea is absurd; there is no "right" to patent anything - it is an act of grace by a government done for public purposes. If the continuation of a patent is going to do far more harm than good (as is the case here), the government has an undoubted legitimate power to put limits on the patent or withdraw it entirely. The parameters of patent law are based on public needs, not on any non-existent "right" to patent.
In a free society the government doesn't just take whatever it wants from companies and citizens because it claims it has a need. If you want a vaccine during a pandemic, you should be thankful to have the opportunity to pay for it. If you refuse to pay for it, then you shouldn't get the product. Ever country has the ability to pay, give resources, labor, land, mineral rights or other things of value. If you don't want to pay, live without the product but don't blame the patent system encourages the creation of products like a vaccine that could save millions of lives.
I'm not against others creating products and not against people/ countries/ institutions who decide they don't want to pay for products. I merely object to taking a product without paying for it as is being done when patents are not protected.
@quackquacksaid In a free society the government doesn't just take whatever it wants from companies and citizens because it claims it has a need. If you want a vaccine during a pandemic, you should be thankful to have the opportunity to pay for it. If you refuse to pay for it, then you shouldn't get the product. Ever country has the ability to pay, give resources, labor, land, minera ...[text shortened]... patent system encourages the creation of products like a vaccine that could save millions of lives.
There is no valid moral principle that values profits over lives. IF continuing a patent is going to cause death and misery, it should be rescinded. Again, there is no "right" to a patent; a patent holder should be thankful his government was nice enough to grant them one and be willing to accept the restrictions and limitations imposed on this gift.
@quackquacksaid In a free society the government doesn't just take whatever it wants from companies and citizens because it claims it has a need. If you want a vaccine during a pandemic, you should be thankful to have the opportunity to pay for it. If you refuse to pay for it, then you shouldn't get the product. Ever country has the ability to pay, give resources, labor, land, minera ...[text shortened]... patent system encourages the creation of products like a vaccine that could save millions of lives.
Every "country" has the ability to pay? How does that work when " the government doesn't just take whatever it wants from companies and citizens because it claims it has a need"?
@quackquacksaid Maybe you have the thick skull so I'll explain it to you.
We won't have vaccines in the future or continued research for a mutating virus if the companies that develop them aren't sufficiently compensated for their product. By refusing to pay for one of the most valuable inventions in a century you have indicated that you don't have an ounce of respect for those who cre ...[text shortened]... , who think they are entitled to life saving medicine without offering to paying a reasonable price.
Dr Edward Jenner didn't patent the smallpox vaccine and look smallpox was eradicated.
If we protect patents then the patent owners will have a financial incentive to NOT eradicate the disease!
Biden to waive COVID patents
11 May '21 17:33
Back to Top