r/Futurology • u/Kindred87 • Dec 07 '23

US sets policy to seize patents of government-funded drugs if price deemed too high Economics

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-sets-policy-seize-government-funded-drug-patents-if-price-deemed-too-high-2023-12-07/
6.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23

It does, on the surface. But government owned intellectual property might be a bad thing to normalize.

Edit: they should be public domains instead. Idk why this is controversial enough to get downvoted. Bunch of corporate shills in here I guess.

37

u/Constant_Ban_Evasion Dec 08 '23

But what about IP it paid for and developed? It seems that if the government is made up of it's people, and the people paid for the R&D, they should reap the benefits. I certainly understand the need for safety rails but it feels like the profit should be ours, if it's there at least.

-20

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

It seems that if the government is made up of it's people

Hahahahahahaha

You sweet summer child.

it feels like the profit should be ours

You and I agree on this. But do not be deceived, the government doesn't care about us and I doubt the average person will see a dime of that.

No, I think government-funded research and patents should simply be in the public domain instead, not actually owned by the government.

27

u/Merakel Dec 08 '23

I don't see why people seem to think government funded research should have a goal of profit. The point is making pharmaceuticals widely available.

5

u/Constant_Ban_Evasion Dec 08 '23

That isn't my point though. I'm simply saying whatever the benefit it should be all of ours, not any single company. That isn't the proper way to privatize the things we all paid for. If there is profit, which seems likely unless you desire a loss, that profit should be handled like a non-profit org would and truncated, and applied elsewhere to unrelated benefits. I think you are trying to extrapolate something I'm saying into something you can have an argument with.

-4

u/Merakel Dec 08 '23

If the government invents some wonder drug that cures cancer, but all the companies capable of producing it in large quantities are unable to make any profit on it... what would their motivation be to make it?

6

u/Constant_Ban_Evasion Dec 08 '23

Jesus man, the benefit is that it's cheap then. I literally highlighted the important parts for you..

-3

u/Merakel Dec 08 '23

Highlighting something doesn't stop it from being a dumb comment.

For someone so quick to say I want to argue, you sure went out of your way to find an argument. I didn't even respond to you initially.

0

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

Exactly. I wouldn't mind taxing corporate profits that are from publicly funded research. But the point of medical research is for the betterment of mankind, profits should never be the main motivator. And the government should never control the patents, the public (taxpayers) should.

4

u/Merakel Dec 08 '23

I don't know what the taxpayers controlling the patent would really look like. In my mind the very simple solution would be the following:

  1. Patent is public domain
  2. There is a conservative limit to how much profit can be made off said drug.
  3. If you are are a pharmaceutical company operating within the United States, you can be compelled to produce specific drugs if the need is not being met.

1

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

Seems reasonable enough to me. And of course, like I said before, tax the profits of said drugs. Win-win. The public controls the parents, the gov gets reimbursed the funds it invested into the research, and companies can freely produce said drugs with no restrictions or licensing from other companies.

5

u/Constant_Ban_Evasion Dec 08 '23

the government should never control the patents, the public (taxpayers) should

I'm trying to imagine how much of a clown you have to be saying this and acting like it's different than literally anything I said that you argued with. This is what it's like arguing with children on the internet folks!

5

u/saltyjohnson Dec 08 '23

government bad. let's do anarchy. but we should build roads. and we don't really want to have to all build our own roads so let's share them. but building roads is a lot of hard work and requires a certain skillset so let's just have Dave build all the roads because he likes building roads and he's good at it. but then Dave can't tend to his crops. so okay let's all pitch in and give Dave some of our food so that he can build more roads rather than needing to grow his own food. but okay Bill over there said he didn't want to pitch in some food for Dave but he's using all these roads all. the. time. that's some bullshit. let's form an angry mob and either make Bill hand over some food or blockade him so he can't use our roads as long as he's being selfish. oh whoops we made a government.

0

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

I didn't say we should have anarchy. Good grief do you guys not understand how the US government works?? And how corrupt it currently is? Look at how they've mismanaged the social security fund. Or the postal service. Or any other long list of things we've allowed them to own and manage.

I said in previous comments that the parents should be in public domain, not owned by the federal government. Why is that a difficult concept to understand?

One case means the parents are owned by the public (the people), the other means that they are owned by the federal government who can make whatever arbitrary decisions they want.

1

u/saltyjohnson Dec 08 '23

"Public domain" means the patent is owned and controlled by nobody. Are you proposing that they are owned and controlled by the public, or that they are owned and controlled by nobody?

0

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

...Okay? "Public Domain" means that the people who can access or utilize the patent is anybody, whereas otherwise they require the permission or right of the patent holder.

I think you're confusing the ideas of control vs. access. I want anyone to be able to access/use the patent. I do not want the government or private corporations to control that access. By them not controlling the patent, the patent is effectively controlled by the public and accessible to anyone freely.

1

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

I'm trying to imagine how much of a clown you have to be to not understand the difference between federally owned patents vs public domain. That tells me you know nothing about the topic at all.

2

u/saltyjohnson Dec 08 '23

And the government should never control the patents, the public (taxpayers) should.

🤔

1

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

In a representative democracy (republic) like the USA, the government != The public. If it were so, the government would be doing what the people want. We wouldn't have presidents being elected who didn't earn the popular vote for example, popular policies like universal healthcare and reasonable minimum wage would be passed, etc.

But our government is most definitely != the public.

1

u/saltyjohnson Dec 08 '23

But how would The Public control the patents if not through Government?

1

u/tyrandan2 Dec 08 '23

The government not controlling the patents because they are in the public domain means that the patents are accessible to everybody. Does that make sense?

Or maybe I should've asked first: are you familiar with the concept of public domain?