When you think of the patent waiver debate - bear in mind this article here. And the fact that Moderna stated it would not enforce its Covid patent. Some thoughts (thread)
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1465318856751210497
We currently have an innovative sector that evolved around IP. But it is different from what people imagine. People think "oh. A new vaccine. It is patented. So one patent, one vaccine." That is incorrect. /2
mRNA vaccines are subject to a complex maze of patents. Take Moderna. PublicCitizen has identified 12 relevant Moderna-owned patents (some not yet granted). citizen.org/article/modern… /3
But that's not the half of it. Besides Moderna's patents there are others that are relevant. And all of these connect through an intricate net of licenses, sub-licenses etc. (BTW: yes, this is actually the same Tesla) /4 nature.com/articles/s4158… 
You'll see that there are universities in the mix, too. Just to bear in mind. There are government grants in there, too. AND THEN there is the stuff you did not get patented. It might be confidential knowledge - by choice kept secret. Or... /5
it's the stuff you fiddle around with. All of this creates a problem: no patent alone enables you to do ... well, anything really. At times a patent might enable you to do next to nothing. But it gets worse /6
Often those patents might be the reason you negotiate a contract that does enable you to do stuff. Including provisions on training, sending staff that helps you get going etc. etc. In short... /7
We might be stuck a bit with this system. That is flawed. Time for reforming the whole patent system (e.g. through stringent utility requirements)?
And besides the stringent utility requirements: allow much simpler, more lenient compulsory licensing to benefit the UN medicines patent pool?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
