Or is this a matter where because it has to do with overseas patent protection, the US could decline to enforce certain agreements?
And don't companies have patent protection in every country they seek to do business anyway?
That's not a problem, modifying laws is the default way how countries do things - if a country says "we'll do X" they most likely mean "we'll modify our laws so that X will happen".
But IIRC the patent laws of many countries already contain specific clauses for a simplified process to void patents for lifesaving reasons if they want to do it.
And it's worth noting that patents aren't a right, it's a privilege selectively granted by the government because the government expects that the process as a whole benefits the general society (by facilitating innovation and publishing of technical innovations instead of hiding them), not because the patent owners have a right to require it. The government does not have to offer patent protection; it chooses to grant a temporary monopoly for a limited time if certain conditions are met, and it can (essentially arbitrarily) decide what those conditions are.
Basically, if you did not pay the King,or someone else paid the King more, the State will destroy your business.
The modern idea of patents comes from that, adding the requirement to document an innovation instead of just paying money to the King.
The State can do end the monopoly at any given time. They have done lots of times in the past, specially in wars.
> Hiding inventions as trade secrets acts to protect these huge multinational corporations [...] This is the reason that huge multinationals lobby so hard for strong trade secret laws and weak patent laws. This is clearly shown in Musk’s low valuation of his patents and high valuation of trade secrets.
> Trade secret protection for inventions that could otherwise be patented is bad public policy because it stifles the progress of innovation [as the knowledge does not end up in the public domain as happens when patent claims expire] and it consolidates money, markets and power into a few huge corporations [...]
The author in this article goes into more detail on the pattern (and history) of human discovery and scientific breakthroughs by using some great examples like the development of the sewing machine, as well as Musk’s purchase of the trade secrets of Maxwell Technologies.
Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
This "waiver" seems like it would essentially be the WTO member states unanimously agreeing that they won't be using any of the usual tools / threats of sanctions they could normally bring to bear as a collective to squash violations of IP for these patents.
The US cannot act unilaterally in this regard - the WTO members would all have to agree to it for it to work effectively - but the US staking out its position may help to drive a consensus position.
Patent laws are also not some natural, inalienable right. They are artificial constructs, provided as a courtesy, because the government feels that in the general case, they are more beneficial than harmful.
In a particular case, they might be more harmful than beneficial.
What do you make of the move corporations are making away from the use of patents, towards the use of a hybrid ‘trade secret + patent‘ sandwich? Is there a scenario where it does not stifle innovation?
I’m asking because I personally don’t see any. As you said these systems are artificial constructs, and at the worst this taking away as trade secrets is theft on an enormous scale.
The internet allows mass collaboration, and I believe we are still in the very early stages of developing this infrastructure.
Elaboration on what exactly I mean by ‘patent + trade secret’ sandwich here: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
I take that it's not happening to the extent claimed, and that those claims are largely self-serving propaganda used as justification for a legal land-grab.
Of course patent owners are going to argue that their patents should be valid for fifty thousand years, with the figleaf that it protects 'innovation'. What else would they say? That they'd like IP law tilted in their favour because it would make them more money?
Really? What you are basing this off of?
This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term and there'll be more than enough doses for every person on Earth by next year. Why should they not retain the IP rights to make a profit on new generations that need to be vaccinated or potential booster shots? The manufacturing capacity will have been built up so scarcity won't be a problem at that point.
If you held a firm conviction that in the near future you'd be able to act on the IP without being in violation, would you be more motivate to progress toward doing so more swiftly?
As a patent holder, would you feel more secure that you could issue cease and desist notices and peruse damages after the waiver is lifted?
Why not? I’m not hearing a clear argument or evidence to support that withholding the patent recipe wouldn’t save millions of lives?
India now has a very high number of cases. As it stands now, your argument just sounds to me like:
“yes human lives, but... profit“.
Please could you elaborate on your argument and/or provide examples of what you’re describing happening in other cases?
This is about mRNA vaccines, but similar things exist for viral vector vaccines as well. Technology transfer, bioreactor bags, fill-finish capacity, all of these things are bottlenecked till next year basically.
RNA based experiments are doable in most university labs. It is 2021.
There is a huge difference between doing RNA experiments versus manufacturing millions of doses of mRNA vaccine without errors or contamination.
The approach to intellectual property in China is much more open, partly because the leaders understand that technical expertise is more than just a one-off design, and competitors probably can't enter the market without significant capital investment and risk. In the case of healthcare, I suspect that regulators will prevent any vaccines manufactured with sub-standard procedures, such as those made in university labs.
There is a pharmaceutical industry in India that is not being given the opportunity to get in this fight and some people say they could help and others say they can’t.
So give them a chance and test if they can!
Yes, the most likely reason why someone would have a different opinion is because they're somehow invested - emotionally, financially, whatever - in the existing vaccine manufacturers.
> There are plenty of other parents needed to make the actual vaccine
So asking for the other patents involved is a reasonable question, especially since your assertion presumably involves knowing - at least vaguely - what said patents might be.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/11/mrna-ip-competitive-la...
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/21/mrna-ip-competitive-la...
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/30/mrna-patent-competitiv...