Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

investors.modernatx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#51

Post by ignoramous »

thefounder wrote: post #18
ignoramous wrote: post #17

The image here https://archive.is/Le9gr captures the patent divide, with Anglo-sphere and the West all-in for free markets, whilst Asia and Africa want the patents to be buried for the greater good. As the crisis worsens in poorer countries, despite an unprecedented 20+ vaccines in deployment, it feels like a sick joke to see White dudes on my Twitter timeline post about "my pfizer versus your moderna".

>>White dudes Since when did this become a race thing?

I didn't mean it in the way you put it, tbh. I meant to highlight the position of privilege the West is in. I just stated what I feel like when I see those tweets, compounded by the reports of the richer countries hoarding vaccines. Canada has procured 8 vaccines per person? Similar figures for the US, the UK, Germany and elsewhere.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#52

Post by rossdavidh »

pas wrote: post #27
high_derivative wrote: post #15

My understanding used to be that this will not change much on an immediate basis since the nano-particle delivery system + its manufacturing chain are quite complicated and not easily scalable. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

For anyone interested: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/my... Around the time of this post I tried to get a bit more information on this, and ... well, here's the rabbit hole: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p3qAm4i7U Use lithography to create the mold, then cure it, then put it into a pure O2 enivornment, then drop it on a glass plate and you just plasma glued the silicone and the glass.…

What is possible given sufficient time, is very different from what is possible in a few months. Even in non-medical situations, getting a high-tech manufacturing process up and running takes years, not months, normally, and working long hours doesn't help as much as you think because the rate of mistakes goes up.

But, having more capacity in a year's time, doesn't necessarily save any lives, since the mRNA vaccines are not the best fit for most of the world anyway, as they require two doses per person and are more demanding in the refrigeration requirements. The adenovirus vaccines, despite the one-in-a-quarter-million side affects, are much more likely to be usable in quantity in most of the world.

So, you could get more capacity up in a year's time, when it won't be needed in the rich world and won't be useful in the rest of the world.

My guess is Moderna just made this announcement to try to dispel the idea that their patent enforcement was somehow getting people killed.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#53

Post by cies »

magnio wrote: post #25
Ecco wrote: post #6

Since this was posted 6 month ago, has any company taken advantage of this by now?

Knowing the formula for the vaccine is one thing, being able to manufacture it at large scale is another (that surely require industrial secrets). This article has some more details: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/my...

Developing a manufacturing process for the remainder of the pandemic, after which continuing may make one susceptible to lawsuits is just not a great outlook.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#54

Post by anotherman554 »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #48
zinok wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely random countries have legal rights to do most things they want to, since they make up their own jurisdictions?

Yes, you can have a legal right to manufacture it - which is to say the legal right to try without being sued or breaking a law. That's not the same thing as the legal right to manufacture it successfully, which is what the distinction would be. The article is blurring the right to attempt to manufacture without legal restriction, and the ability to successfully replicate the formulation. This blurring makes sense fr…

I think what that person you responded to what getting at is a "country" has the legal right to do whatever they want. If a country signed a treaty promising to recognize patents from foreign countries they have the legal right to withdraw from the treaty.

I assume poorer countries are not doing this due to fear of foreign aid being withdrawn, but this isn't really an issue of "rights".

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#55

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

FriedrichN wrote: post #21

I know making a vaccine is a little different than making strawberry jam, but why is there so little supply of the Moderna vaccine given this situation?

Not OP, just to clarify for US folks: Here in the EU Moderna is only small part of the vaccination effort. The breakdown so far is roughly 70% Pfizer/Biontech, 20% AstraZenca and 10% Moderna. The Moderna deliveries are supposed to increase in Q3, however I am not sure how relevant it will be at that point. The EU also finalized a deal for 1.8 billion Pfizer/Biontech shots for the next couple years. So Moderna will probably also not be super relevant here going forward.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#56

Post by tony0x02 »

ncmncm wrote: post #50
Clewza313 wrote: post #34

A critical view of this pledge, separately posted on HN: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/04/moderna-patents-covid-19-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26941571 TL;DR: Patents these days are effectively worthless at reproducing the invention, they only function as a legal way to stop competitors.

On the up side, the patented technique, including even the "withheld" parts, ought to be worthless by the time it expires, anyway. We need legislation to eliminate withholding essential parts of what is patented.

> We need legislation to eliminate withholding essential parts of what is patented.

That is the purpose of 35 usc 112 1st paragraph.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#57

Post by bluGill »

pas wrote: post #27
high_derivative wrote: post #15

My understanding used to be that this will not change much on an immediate basis since the nano-particle delivery system + its manufacturing chain are quite complicated and not easily scalable. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

For anyone interested: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/my... Around the time of this post I tried to get a bit more information on this, and ... well, here's the rabbit hole: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68p3qAm4i7U Use lithography to create the mold, then cure it, then put it into a pure O2 enivornment, then drop it on a glass plate and you just plasma glued the silicone and the glass.…

The impossible part is time. You can make a car from ore that you dig yourself - if someone provides you food and shelter you could finish this task in 30 years or so. You could even make the atoms in a super collider given enough time (well energy is probably the limit).

But we need vaccines today. That means we are limited to what can be manufactured today by existing processes and factories. If you need a round iron part accurate to .001 inch (or similar metric) I know plenty of machinists. Need it more accurate and you have eliminated a large part of that supply chain, but I can still get you to .0001 inches, more than that is hard to find anyone who can handle (possibly impossible - temperature becomes a factor).

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#58

Post by icegreentea2 »

anotherman554 wrote: post #54
icegreentea2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can have a legal right to manufacture it - which is to say the legal right to try without being sued or breaking a law. That's not the same thing as the legal right to manufacture it successfully, which is what the distinction would be. The article is blurring the right to attempt to manufacture without legal restriction, and the ability to successfully replicate the formulation. This blurring makes sense fr…

I think what that person you responded to what getting at is a "country" has the legal right to do whatever they want. If a country signed a treaty promising to recognize patents from foreign countries they have the legal right to withdraw from the treaty. I assume poorer countries are not doing this due to fear of foreign aid being withdrawn, but this isn't really an issue of "rights".

We're bringing up rights because Jacobin framed in the terms of rights. And within the specific context of the article, we don't need to sorry about worrying about repercussions - Moderna has effectively granted a license to allow 'random countries' to make their vaccine without being suited for patent infringement.

Jacobin's point is that the pledge is meaningless because the patent lacks sufficient information to make the vaccine anyways - it's all locked up in trade secrets. Jacobin then frames this in terms of rights.

Jacobin claims that the way patents are usually discussed will imply that patents are about 'positive rights' - that is, if you have a patent or license, then you have the ability to commercialize (or whatever) the thing that is patented. Jacobin then claims that in reality, patents are just a negative right. Having a patent, or a license to a patent is just a freedom from not being sued for commercializing a product - since the real positive right that people want - the ability to successfully produce the object is actually wrapped under trade-secrets. The article is basically arguing that this split is injust, or at least extremely misleading, and is trying to call out the bullshit.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#59

Post by thaeli »

refurb wrote: post #45
high_derivative wrote: post #15

My understanding used to be that this will not change much on an immediate basis since the nano-particle delivery system + its manufacturing chain are quite complicated and not easily scalable. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

Yup. Moderna doesn’t have much to worry about. Most of the volume of vaccine will be sold in the next 6-12 months, not enough time for another manufacturer to develop the manufacturing capability, validate it and get FDA approval. Even if new vaccines are needed for new variants, it won’t be easy for another company to catch up when the cycle are 12 months long and then you’re onto the next version.

Plus, once the pandemic is "over" at least officially, their best case scenario is that other manufacturers did implement their parents.. because they can start collecting license fees, and those manufacturers are likely to have made investments in ways that commit them long-term to using processes covered by Moderna's patent portfolio.

Re: Moderna waiving Intellectual Property rights for the remainder of the pandemic (2020)

#60

Post by bluGill »

refurb wrote: post #45
high_derivative wrote: post #15

My understanding used to be that this will not change much on an immediate basis since the nano-particle delivery system + its manufacturing chain are quite complicated and not easily scalable. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

Yup. Moderna doesn’t have much to worry about. Most of the volume of vaccine will be sold in the next 6-12 months, not enough time for another manufacturer to develop the manufacturing capability, validate it and get FDA approval. Even if new vaccines are needed for new variants, it won’t be easy for another company to catch up when the cycle are 12 months long and then you’re onto the next version.

Moderna would probably be happy to license their next vaccine to someone who did invest in a factory. The price would be probably be affordable. I'm not sure it is worth it though, only time will tell if a booster shot is needed.
Post reply on HN