|
|
|
|
|
by DeathArrow
1675 days ago
|
|
I don't want to sound like a communist but it's not people who are holding patents and funding research. Usually research is funded by governments by subsidizing universities and research institutions or by companies. So we can have governments continuing to subsidize research, but forbid universities and research institutions to sell the rights to only one company. |
|
So the question of who did the initial research and who funded it isn’t really important to the question of whether invalidating patents left and right will negatively impact the rate at which new drugs are brought to market.
If the government wants the company’s patents and distribution rights, at this point I’m sure they’d be willing to sell everything over to the government at cost. Clearly no government is interested in buying the rights for $200M, any more than they are interested in buying doses for $1M each. The company that brought this treatment to market has clearly gotten utterly screwed here, and the nature of the comments on the article suggest that a lot of people here are disappointed that no governments have intervened to screw them even more for the audacity of thinking that they should be compensated for their work.
Perhaps the lesson here is that maybe seizing their parents for not selling their treatment at a loss isn’t actually a bad idea. Maybe there’s no risk of discouraging pharmaceutical companies from developing expensive treatments for niche conditions, since it’s already clearly a terrible idea, and companies already won’t be making the mistake of ever doing it again.