[bufferoverflow]

The patent protects from somebody simply copying the formula. Which is many orders of magnitude cheaper than doing research and development, especially on human subjects.

[JshWright]

Why does that matter if the research and development costs were publicly funded?

[rhino369]

Trials and regulatory approvals are a huge cost too.

If the government paid for all of that (including opportunity costs + a decent margin), then the government should have asked for the patent rights (or at least a commitment on pricing).

Has any serious journalist looked into exactly what the world governments paid for and exactly what the deals with the drug companies look like?

All I can find are biased opinion pieces devoid of actual information.

[disgruntledphd2]

The FT had some coverage of this, but it wasn't massively in depth. The one thing I remember is that the AZ would be sold without profit until the end of the pandemic, which was contractually defined as June 2021.

Incidentally, if you want serious journalism, the FT is worth paying for.

[bufferoverflow]

Because they can and it will make them a ton of money.

The laws need to change.

[gambiting]

But, for instance - public money is used to build roads, yet companies that build them make money in the process. There is no state-owned road building company. What's the difference here?

[MereInterest]

Public money pays for the roads. After the road is built, the road belongs to the public. Public money pays for the research. After the research finishes, the results should belong to the public, the same way as the road does.

[FrojoS]

The public can of course sell (i), charge (ii) or monetize in any other way.

(i) e.g. privatization of telephone networks

(ii) e.g. toll roads and bridges

[reegnz]

They belong to a publicly funded research institute that was given the right by the public to sell it's research to private enterprise.

The 'public' wanted that by voting in the lawmakers making that possible.

That's how democracy works.

Also we're not talking about physical things, but something 'intellectual' like software, so the comparison is inaccurate.

More accurate would be IT research done in a publicly funded university.

[hobofan]

> After the road is built, the road belongs to the public.

Depending on where you live, you could very well be under the impression that the roads belong to delivery companies, taxis, etc. (private companies that make money off them) as they are effectively useless to everyone else (= the public) while they are constantly blocking them.

[eecc]

That’s a faulty parallel. The road belongs to the public, while only the building is tendered to a private (in a presumably competitive market) to maximize quality and price ratio.

In this case the building is publicly funded for a profit AND the final result donated in “perpetuity” to make it a private TOLL road.

Double dip?

(I’m ok with subsidizing the research, and even negotiating a bulk manufacturing contract with an agreed margin... but a patent? Isn’t that bending too far?)

[peterwoerner]

My village has their own road building and repairing department--mostly used for repairing. It's called the department of public works. We have our own utility company too. Both of those end up being cheaper than the having private companies do it.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

You don't die if you can't afford to drive on the road. That's the difference.

[gambiting]

But most places(at least around the EU) have already announced that the vaccine will be free - so there is no question about affordability?

[mrgordon]

The taxes still paid for it twice

[__s]

Is another state going to get sued for having a different company build a road of the same material? I dunno, maybe Asphalt Co should be getting license fees for every road built. Maybe even add a toll booth so drivers have to pay a license fee to Asphalt Co to drive on their roads

Noam Chomsky has quite a bone to pick about toll roads

[hobofan]

> If the research has been already paid out