[dalke]

It would surely depend on the patent license, no? As http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovati... points out:

> No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no indication that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine.

Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market, while otherwise making the license available at no cost?

[chaostheory]

> Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market

For one thing you don't need patent protections to keep 'low quality' vaccines out of the market. To my knowledge, that's what government regulatory bodies like the FDA are for.

> while otherwise making the license available at no cost?

Even if this was the case, I'm sure that Salk knew that if it was patented, that this would be only temporary (with no guarantees on reasonable pricing in the future); and it would be an unnecessary and immediate roadblock to helping people.

[dalke]

That's what the FDA does now, yes. However, the polio vaccine was introduced when the FDA had weaker powers. It wasn't until after the Thalidomide tragedy and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment where pharmaceutical companies also needed to demonstrate effectiveness. Before then, companies only needed to demonstrate safety.

As it was, the Cutter polio vaccine incident shows that making the vaccine was not easy.

> I'm sure that Salk knew ...

How are you sure? Is this discussed in his biography or autobiography? I see the topic is covered in Jane S. Smith's "Patent the Sun", but I haven't read it.

Other vaccines (or vaccine preparations) at the time were patented. Was your described behavior typical for them?