• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

The vaccine ..who owns it?

Recommended Posts

Who owns it

Who pays for companies to stop doing what they're doing now and have new kit and training to make it.

Oxford uni innovations and a spin off company own it.

They might just charge for manufacturing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

These things are complicated. I don’t want to say too much because I might dox myself but look up “Chiron vs murex HCV”. There was a similar group of patents on HIV and a degree of horse trading went on with companies allowing each other to operate because they all had a bit of the intellectual property.  
 

She might find she owns her vaccine but has to license what she uses in it from numerous someone else’s,  whoever owns the patents on whatever goes into it. And before you say ‘nobody would ever refuse to grant a license or demand unreasonable terms, it’s a public health emergency’ I refer you back to Chiron vs Murex....

She may not be half as smart as she thinks she is. My company has lawyers and contracts people on every project... I bet she doesn’t...

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Melchett said:

....

She may not be half as smart as she thinks she is. My company has lawyers and contracts people on every project... I bet she doesn’t...

Do you not think Oxford university innovations has it covered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

Do you not think Oxford university innovations has it covered?

No.

ETA. From my experience of her sort, not a snowballs chance in hell they have explored all the ramifications and got all the IP they need.

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Who owns it

Who pays for companies to stop doing what they're doing now and have new kit and training to make it.

Oxford uni innovations and a spin off company own it.

They might just charge for manufacturing.

 

 

For vaccines, they they tend to be public funded research, so normally the host country or funding org.

Vaccines dont tend to be money hogs, so pharma dont really get involved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spygirl said:

For vaccines, they they tend to be public funded research, so normally the host country or funding org.

Vaccines dont tend to be money hogs, so pharma dont really get involved.

 

What about if someone has patented the unique sequence of the virus that the vaccine uses. Personally I don't see how this is a thing. Also what if someone as patented it before the virus got into the wild - conspiracy theory level stuff there but might be worth looking at.

There is something that smells bad in terms of the WHO, Gates. Fauci et al, something is not right in all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, onlyme said:

What about if someone has patented the unique sequence of the virus that the vaccine uses. Personally I don't see how this is a thing. Also what if someone as patented it before the virus got into the wild - conspiracy theory level stuff there but might be worth looking at.

There is something that smells bad in terms of the WHO, Gates. Fauci et al, something is not right in all of this.

I think the laws on patent biological whatnots is pretty vague.

Besides, vaccines change. Be like nailing jelly to a wall.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2007/10/who-report-explores-patent-issues-concerning-flu-viruses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, spygirl said:

For vaccines, they they tend to be public funded research, so normally the host country or funding org.

Vaccines dont tend to be money hogs, so pharma dont really get involved.

 

 

Corporate lawyers don’t go after academics because there is no money to be made, or lost to a competitor product. So academics flout Ip left right and centre and often don’t even realise they are doing it.

The Chiron lawsuit vs Murex, Organon et al wasn’t about making money. The defendants were willing to pay licenses, even though there was strong evidence that Murex discovered the key sequence in Chirons patent first. It was about depriving competitors of the ability to sell their products and develop new products. And this was in diagnostics, which is similarly non profit/low budget as vaccines, not in pharma. 
 

Whenever there is money to be made or lost, there will be IP disputes. As I said, academic led biotechs are very vulnerable to this because they tend to come out of an environment where someone has developed their ideas without thought to the IP ramifications.

 

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, onlyme said:

What about if someone has patented the unique sequence of the virus that the vaccine uses. Personally I don't see how this is a thing. Also what if someone as patented it before the virus got into the wild - conspiracy theory level stuff there but might be worth looking at.

There is something that smells bad in terms of the WHO, Gates. Fauci et al, something is not right in all of this.

As I said, people had patents on the HIV and HCV sequences. And they vigorously enforced them.

Personally I feel those people should have been sued for the damages their so called inventions caused, but common sense doesn’t count in the world of IP law. 

Edited by Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Melchett said:

As I said, people had patents on the HIV and HCV sequences. And they vigorously enforced them.

Personally I feel those people should have been sued for the damages their so called inventions caused, but common sense doesn’t count in the world of IP law. 

I'm genuinely shocked (though probably shouldn't be),  that because you discover the genetic sequence of something you can patent it. 

It's like finding a Yeti in the outback,  and then claiming you own all rights to Yetis because you found it first o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this kind of copyright work in India or Vietnam? Surely if they've got somebody with the recipe and they don't want to pay Gates/Monsanto or whoever to use it then they just tell them to swivel? Save millions of lives or be held to ransom by some fucker the other side of the world with some fancy paperwork? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.