Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Kamala is going to snatch patents?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by okeechobee, Aug 19, 2024.

  1. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,064
    1,317
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    I don't care what any of you say about Trump, this is bats**t crazy stuff. Kamala proposing the government confiscate patents from private pharmaceutical developers if they "don't play by her rules." I'm not a huge big pharma fan myself, but understand you can't threaten pharmaceutical research companies with this sort of thing or the innovation will dry up quicker than a ham sandwich in the Mojave desert.

     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    35,449
    1,758
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    I think that's an iffy plan. what will the US do with the patents?
    but aren't you ignoring an important part of what she said?
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,064
    1,317
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    The important part of what she said was a blunt threat to pharmaceutical research companies that she will "snatch their patent." It's one thing to institute drug price controls across the board, which is lunacy in of itself. But snatching patents? That's what the Soviet Union did.

    You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that if Harris wins, we have never had a president this far to the left. We're not talking about a California liberal here. We're talking about the next Fidel Castro, the next Hugo Chavez. Her ideology does not align with American free market capitalism.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  4. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    35,449
    1,758
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Come on. She said she was talking about the meds where the federal govt paid for the R&D. Why ignore that?
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. gaterzfan

    gaterzfan GC Hall of Fame

    1,835
    365
    1,713
    Feb 6, 2020
    Well, so much for private property rights under a “scarecrow and cowardly lion” administration. She’s a prat.
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Spurffelbow833

    Spurffelbow833 GC Hall of Fame

    9,541
    725
    1,293
    Jan 9, 2009
    I didn't know you could patent that.
     
  7. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,064
    1,317
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    There's nothing to ignore about that. So if the government subsidizes inventions with taxpayer money, they should be able to confiscate the patent after the inventor spent all of the time and resources to procure that invention? I gather you don't think things through very well before you post them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 2
  8. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    3,800
    3,561
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    We don't say 'snatch'.
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
  9. Orange_and_Bluke

    Orange_and_Bluke Premium Member

    9,937
    2,376
    3,038
    Dec 16, 2015
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,324
    14,404
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007
    That's how it starts...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. gaterzfan

    gaterzfan GC Hall of Fame

    1,835
    365
    1,713
    Feb 6, 2020
    Only a "twat" (British version) says "snatch".
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,934
    1,738
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    Although I cannot speak for her she was probably referring to the strategy that some pharmaceutical companies do to extend their patents, one example simply changing the dosage. For example if the original patent refers to 100 mg per dose, the company simply changes the dosage 125 mg although the actual chemical composition of the drug is unchanged. There are other stunts that the companies also employ and even if their decision is ultimately reversed in court they still get the benefit of exclusivity for several more years at the expense of patients.
    How Patent Extensions Keep Some Drug Costs High
    But companies have been abusing the patent system to extend their market monopolies, says Krishtel. A 2018 study from I-MAK found that companies amass patents on existing drugs, blocking competition: The top 12 grossing drugs in the U.S. had an average of 71 patents granted, which almost doubled the time these drugs are protected from generic competition. Many of the granted patents are for minor tweaks, such as combining two drugs into one or altering the dosage — changes that aren’t inventive, Krishtel argues, and thus undeserving of new patents. A 2018 study by Robin Feldman, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, found that 78 percent of new drug patents between 2005 and 2015 were for existing drugs.
     
    • Creative Creative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. gaterzfan

    gaterzfan GC Hall of Fame

    1,835
    365
    1,713
    Feb 6, 2020
    I wonder if the scarecrow has considered the terms of the grants provided to private industry for such R&D .... and whether or not it can "snatch" patents from anyone? Heck, it's a lawyer (did she ever pass the bar exam?) and should understand that grants typically include terms defining patent ownership, etc.

    Further, has it even begun to consider how much R&D is funded via the R&D tax credit and how it would be able to "snatch" patents resulting from R&D efforts "paid for" with the R&D tax credit?

    The scarecrow is simply a buffoon.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    3,748
    807
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    Please don’t have Kamala and Snatch in the same sentence or title.
     
    • Funny Funny x 7
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,895
    1,861
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    That would be terrible, we might have to pay affordable prices for drugs if that happens
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,324
    14,404
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007
    /s/ Resident commie.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,553
    2,553
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    But is she better looking than Donald? That was Trumps last policy announcement.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. cocodrilo

    cocodrilo GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 8, 2007
    O Orange One, please save us from Kamabla! She's not even as good-looking as you! I know you can do this, O Thou Who Hast Done Nothing Wrong! Ever! Amen.

    P.S. I'll send you some money right away, O Thou of Eternal Need!
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  19. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    12,106
    1,145
    1,618
    Apr 9, 2007
    So let me get this straight. Government helps funds drug research through taxpayer monies. Private firm invents potential lifesaving drug. But charges so much, that a significant segment of the population cannot afford to buy/use the lifesaving drug that their taxes helped pay to invent? How is this fair?

    It's not. It also may not be fair to the pharmaceutical company, but what is the value of a human life? It's not like someone wants a Cadillac and can only afford a Chevy or take public transit. Drugs and healthcare save and extend people's lives. The free market profit model doesn't work if/when the person who can't afford the product dies as a result, does it not?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  20. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,064
    1,317
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    I thought about it myself, but it fits, so as to highlight her overall repulsiveness as a person. There's another word for snatch, that would have described her pristinely.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1