Contribute to Liz Cheney? Why do Democrats want to reward an arch conservative Republican for doing the right thing? Contribute to Democratic candidates so we can keep the House and expand our margin in the Senate. It’s a no brainer.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Liz Cheney! I still don't see any examples of Republicans who think beyond their own interests or views when they talk about what is fair and good for the country. What we have seen in these past few years of reading from blogs like Robert's and Heather's and Judd's is that the historical record shows us that none ... I repeat none! ... of economic conservatism has ever meant prosperity beyond for the few who take advantage of little to no regulations on their businesses and lives. Conservative? Again, when conservative means keeping for oneself rather than saving and sharing prosperity across the board ... well, no sympathy from me. And republican talking points have over and over and over again turned logic on its head when pushing back against any use of "their money" for the overall public good.
I'm a biotech patent attorney, and I am baffled as to how waiving patent rights in the United States will help vaccine access in other countries. I am so frustrated by the news reporting on this, as no one explains any kind of nexus between U.S. patent laws (which can only have jurisdiction over products sold and/or made in (or imported to) the United States) and India's need for vaccines. Yet I have progressive friends on facebook cheering this on, as if this is, as you put it, the moral thing to do. I support and appreciate the importance of helping the entire world get vaccinated, but what does waiving patent rights have to do with that? I believe Rachel Maddow said last night that it was about getting trade secrets and technical know-how into their hands. Great, but that is not something that is restricted by patent rights! Patents are all about putting the know-how into the published patent document in exchange for the right to exclude others from making or using the claimed invention -- but ONLY IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE PATENT is held.
I can guess that maybe the idea is that a generic competing manufacturer in the US would be enabled to produce the vaccine for distribution to other countries, but no one is saying that. My other guess is that the US can help pressure other countries (like the UK) to waive patent rights, which might help India. But we already know that India is making covid vaccines (which likely are affected by UK patent holders) and is ramping up their production (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-fund-capacity-boost-serum-institute-vaccines-run-short-source-2021-04-19/).
Thank you for mentioning the obvious downfalls of waiving patent rights (which may not be obvious to those emphasizing the "moral" argument). The long term consequences of devaluing patent rights could hurt us even more for the next pandemic.
Contribute to Liz Cheney? Why do Democrats want to reward an arch conservative Republican for doing the right thing? Contribute to Democratic candidates so we can keep the House and expand our margin in the Senate. It’s a no brainer.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Liz Cheney! I still don't see any examples of Republicans who think beyond their own interests or views when they talk about what is fair and good for the country. What we have seen in these past few years of reading from blogs like Robert's and Heather's and Judd's is that the historical record shows us that none ... I repeat none! ... of economic conservatism has ever meant prosperity beyond for the few who take advantage of little to no regulations on their businesses and lives. Conservative? Again, when conservative means keeping for oneself rather than saving and sharing prosperity across the board ... well, no sympathy from me. And republican talking points have over and over and over again turned logic on its head when pushing back against any use of "their money" for the overall public good.
I'm a biotech patent attorney, and I am baffled as to how waiving patent rights in the United States will help vaccine access in other countries. I am so frustrated by the news reporting on this, as no one explains any kind of nexus between U.S. patent laws (which can only have jurisdiction over products sold and/or made in (or imported to) the United States) and India's need for vaccines. Yet I have progressive friends on facebook cheering this on, as if this is, as you put it, the moral thing to do. I support and appreciate the importance of helping the entire world get vaccinated, but what does waiving patent rights have to do with that? I believe Rachel Maddow said last night that it was about getting trade secrets and technical know-how into their hands. Great, but that is not something that is restricted by patent rights! Patents are all about putting the know-how into the published patent document in exchange for the right to exclude others from making or using the claimed invention -- but ONLY IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE PATENT is held.
I can guess that maybe the idea is that a generic competing manufacturer in the US would be enabled to produce the vaccine for distribution to other countries, but no one is saying that. My other guess is that the US can help pressure other countries (like the UK) to waive patent rights, which might help India. But we already know that India is making covid vaccines (which likely are affected by UK patent holders) and is ramping up their production (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-fund-capacity-boost-serum-institute-vaccines-run-short-source-2021-04-19/).
Thank you for mentioning the obvious downfalls of waiving patent rights (which may not be obvious to those emphasizing the "moral" argument). The long term consequences of devaluing patent rights could hurt us even more for the next pandemic.