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. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,512
    1,356
    2,008
    Apr 3, 2007
    She said if they don't play by "our" rules. This is about accountability. I have no idea what the protocols are for revocation and/or invalidation. Frankly, I'm skeptical that her administration is going to be the catalyst that helps to fight back for the people, but at least the idea is being expressed. That's an idea that we should all be behind. I'm sure many/most of us have some portion of these crooks in our portfolios; I'd gladly take whatever hit comes with it if it meant a more ethical model of pricing.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  2. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,512
    1,356
    2,008
    Apr 3, 2007
    Is there something that she expressed that strikes you as a violation of known protocols to revoke or invalidate a patent?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,036
    736
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
  4. ursidman

    ursidman VIP Member

    14,085
    22,599
    3,348
    Sep 27, 2007
    Bug Tussle NC
    If this were possible i could rule the world.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    8,948
    2,108
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    upload_2024-8-19_18-35-3.jpeg
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  6. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    123,249
    163,959
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    Why doesn't the government put that stipulation into all future grants?
     
  7. slocala

    slocala VIP Member

    3,036
    736
    2,028
    Jan 11, 2009
    Maybe she believes the tax credits (R&D tax credits) and government grants are implicit investments by government? Grants and tax credits are policy matters to incentivize growth and investment in IP within the US.

    She seems to favor public-private partnerships and government ownership of assets. Government would be conflicted with investments that compete with other private business. PPP is fine for large infrastructure, but not so great if development of industry.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  8. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise GC Hall of Fame

    15,716
    26,019
    3,363
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    If the govt takes away the patent, where is the incentive to continue producing said drug? Would this not create shortages of said drug? It would take time for another company to scale up production if given the patent by the govt. And why would any company take it knowing the govt could take it back at any time and destroy their investment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,512
    1,356
    2,008
    Apr 3, 2007
    Wouldn't all of this depend on the nature of why the government is taking away the patent? Is it your view that there is never a good reason to take a patent away from an entity? Or perhaps that patent law cannot possibly be abused in a way to take advantage of the very people that provide it?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,895
    1,861
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    That drug would basically be "public domain" ... anyone could produce it. If people need a gov't guaranteed monopoly to incentivize production, we should just pack up and quit capitalism now lol. The people that hold the patents deliberately create scarcity to drive up the price, so its not like its a system of abundance as it stands. I thought competition is what we want in a so-called "free-market?" Is it the governments duty to see that pharma maximizes exclusive profits or to have a competitive market?
     
  11. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise GC Hall of Fame

    15,716
    26,019
    3,363
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    The only reason the govt should take a patent is if the holder is producing a dangerous product.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise GC Hall of Fame

    15,716
    26,019
    3,363
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    And if anyone can produce, the likelihood is noone will because there will be very little profit in it. At least not enough to support R&D into new drugs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,895
    1,861
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    Sounds like pharma propaganda has worked wonders on people. If you are right, yet another great case to not have a for-profit healthcare system.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  14. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,895
    1,861
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    Basically every drug has side-effects that could be considered dangerous, so that works lol.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Orange_and_Bluke

    Orange_and_Bluke Premium Member

    9,937
    2,376
    3,038
    Dec 16, 2015
    I can’t get over how many “intelligent” people trust the govt with their money.
    And they literally vote for the party who will increase taxes and that same govt has a long history of wasting it.
    Then, the libbies dig even deeper and want govt to get more in bed with the business world.
    Insane.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 2
  16. WESGATORS

    WESGATORS Moderator VIP Member

    22,512
    1,356
    2,008
    Apr 3, 2007
    So if the patent was acquired fraudulently, too bad, should have caught it at the time? My point is there are existing rules that entities agree to when it comes to ownership of a patent. I certainly don't know all of the reasons and/or how they would be applied, but the existing rules extend beyond production of a dangerous product. Is it fair to say that there are existing rules that are applicable that you don't think should be?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  17. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise GC Hall of Fame

    15,716
    26,019
    3,363
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    Healthcare is a service not a right.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    29,895
    1,861
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    Is having a patent a right? Its not last time I checked.
     
  19. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    10,064
    1,317
    678
    Sep 11, 2022
    You're moving the goal posts. Kamala didn't say a word about patents being acquired fraudulently. She clearly stated her government would confiscate the patents if the developers didn't sell their product at her rate. This has nothing to do with patents for dangerous products. That's a totally different discussion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  20. ETGator1

    ETGator1 GC Hall of Fame

    15,872
    1,787
    708
    Apr 3, 2007
    You won't pay any price for drugs as they will disappear just like in Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela. (shaking head)
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1