[rayiner]

Pandemic aside, the US government shouldn’t get a better deal than any other investor. If you invest “tens of millions” into drugs that will cost “billions” to bring to market, you don’t get to get the drug for free. Imagine a Silicon Valley investor proposing those terms: we’ll invest $1 million in your startup for 75% of the equity. But that’s exactly what people are proposing when they say a few tens of millions of government funding should buy free access to patented technology that takes hundreds of millions to bring to market.

[awinder]

I don’t think people are asking for “free”, they’re asking for “at cost”, or some sort of bulk deal. There is actually a lot of precedent for that in SV deals, for one people get some return on investment (the bulk order discount / profit cut deal). Second you get deal modifiers like facebooks sweetheart ad deal for Microsoft’s 240M funding round, which might be akin to “if we fund this thing we need you to work with us if we’re all about to die without it”.

Truly good/fair solution probably exists between nationalizing Gilead and Gileads opening bid.

[JamesBarney]

At cost is highly problematic when your investor is also your largest consumer by a huge margin.

[s1artibartfast]

Also, if you donate no-strings grants and services, you are not a investor in the traditional sense. You are providing charity.