31–40 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't sell the same molecule if they have a patent. It's not about reverse engineering.
China and their lax patent "laws" would like to have a word with you.
Wow, potentially just in time. Hopefully it works in vivo and we can throw millions of dollars at it right now if it becomes necessary. This could mobilize a small economy if coronavirus turns into a severe pandemic.
Even with the urgency of an ongoing epidemic, there's a lot of work to turn this into a supplyable treatment.
Sure, but: "Florey had not patented penicillin, having been advised [...] that doing so would be unethical"[0]. Anyone else immediately thought: "OK, but they patented it, and the spin off company will presumably licence the tech for exorbitant sums, should it ever reach that phase of course, so it'll just be another expensive 1st world thing. No money? Bite the dust."? And yeah, I know, patents encourage inventions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What problem does the body have with breaking down artificial sweeteners?
Read the reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Haribo-SUGAR-Classic-Gummi-Bears/prod... And fwiw the whole point of "non-caloric" artificial sweeteners is that they're indigestible. https://chriskresser.com/how-artificial-sweeteners-wreak-hav...
Sure, but: "Florey had not patented penicillin, having been advised [...] that doing so would be unethical"[0]. Anyone else immediately thought: "OK, but they patented it, and the spin off company will presumably licence the tech for exorbitant sums, should it ever reach that phase of course, so it'll just be another expensive 1st world thing. No money? Bite the dust."? And yeah, I know, patents encourage inventions…
No, patents pretty much only enrich someone at the expense of everyone else. Without patents and copyright we could progress much faster. Look how fast China caught up. It's not becaue they respected intellectual property, I can tell you that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure that government could just buy a patent like this at a price that they choose. Some countries might choose to do that, some might not. Also, patents expire after only 21 years. They have patented this molecule now, but they haven't actually got a treatment as yet, meaning that the clock is ticking. I don't know if you can copyright a molecule?
US patent law states that "compositions of matter" (i.e., drug molecules) are patentable.
Sure, but: "Florey had not patented penicillin, having been advised [...] that doing so would be unethical"[0]. Anyone else immediately thought: "OK, but they patented it, and the spin off company will presumably licence the tech for exorbitant sums, should it ever reach that phase of course, so it'll just be another expensive 1st world thing. No money? Bite the dust."? And yeah, I know, patents encourage inventions…
No, patents pretty much only enrich someone at the expense of everyone else. Without patents and copyright we could progress much faster. Look how fast China caught up. It's not becaue they respected intellectual property, I can tell you that.
While there is a decent argument to make here, this isn't it. Obviously a lack of IP protection makes it easier to copy what already exists ("catching up"). The question is whether it makes it easier to develop what doesn't exist yet.
Sure, but: "Florey had not patented penicillin, having been advised [...] that doing so would be unethical"[0]. Anyone else immediately thought: "OK, but they patented it, and the spin off company will presumably licence the tech for exorbitant sums, should it ever reach that phase of course, so it'll just be another expensive 1st world thing. No money? Bite the dust."? And yeah, I know, patents encourage inventions…