Is it needed to hold the patent to be profitable as a manufacturer ? If the research has been already paid out, I'd prefer healthy competition.
I know a lot of people, Americans in particular, are weary of 'big pharma' and for-profit healthcare. And Americans have good reason for that mistrust. But this isn't just an American issue.
Other governments such as the EU and India will force their hand if needed for the public good. As they've done countless times in the past. We just need to get this developed and manufactured as fast as possible.
And the linked article said the clash was between this pharmaceutical behemoth or a startup from the university. I'll take the behemoth now.
"The scientists’ small biotech company—a spinout partially funded by Oxford—was refusing to hand over intellectual-property rights. To outflank their bosses, the scientists asked a London investment banker to help explore other potential deals."
The laws need to change.
Socialized risk and privatized profits. A capitalist's dream.
To go back to your highway analogy, its as if the government contracted for the entire interstate highway system to be built and then let various private companies charge a perpetual toll to use the roads in addition to the money they made for building it.
Its not an accounting trick, its a perpetual royalty on the taxpayer's expense if the drug works (and a profit even if their drug never passes Phase 3 clinical trials).
(i) e.g. privatization of telephone networks
(ii) e.g. toll roads and bridges
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.
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.
Noam Chomsky has quite a bone to pick about toll roads
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?)
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.
Incidentally, if you want serious journalism, the FT is worth paying for.