Scientists at UC Riverside have demonstrated a new, RNA-based vaccine strategy that is effective against any strain of a virus and can be used safely even by babies or the immunocompromised.
I do t know UC Riverside’s history for how they manage their patents, but I’m on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It’s okay to have a patent. It’s ok to profit off an invention you spent a lot of money producing. But what’s not ok would be upping the price so high that people have to choose dying over getting the product because they simply can’t afford it. Let’s hope UC does the former and not the latter.
That’s in fact why some universities patent their research stuff in the first place, to ensure nobody else can. They’ll then make it a policy to take 0€ in licensing fees, but this precludes anybody else from starting to lock the tech behind money.
Source: My uni back in the days had a few dozen patents for exactly this reason, too.
IANAL but patents rely on originality, meaning a preprint of the original paper is basically enough to make the technology impossible to patent. Well probably more than just the paper I guess.
I learned it too that it has to be “new”. Most likely it is a hell of a lot easier to directly patent it and have a strong legal foundation than just wait around and scramble for proof if it needs to be. Probably also helps being picked up by the industry.
Generally these “patented” products from universities are funded via tax payer money. I am not cool with them profiting off something that is intended to save lives and was also funded by the very people who’s lives will be affected.
Putting things behind a patent wall only hinders progress.
A patent also ensures no one else can patent it. If they make it affordable and available they are protected from someone else patenting it and then “profitmaxxing” because they have legal recourse to prevent that.
Public universities receive funding from a multitude of sources. Research is typically funded by grants, which may come from state or federal sources, but they can also come from alumni, fundraising, or charitable trusts.
Regardless, patents are a necessary part of invention. As others have pointed out, without a patent, what’s to stop some other entity from coming along and (for example) using your hard work to make themselves rich? I’d wager if it were your invention/discovery, you’d want protections too.
There are some entities out there that would easily abuse patents. But I find it hard to believe a public university would be one of them.
I do t know UC Riverside’s history for how they manage their patents, but I’m on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It’s okay to have a patent. It’s ok to profit off an invention you spent a lot of money producing. But what’s not ok would be upping the price so high that people have to choose dying over getting the product because they simply can’t afford it. Let’s hope UC does the former and not the latter.
Let’s be more clear: IF THEY DONT PATENT IT SOMEONE ELSE WILL.
UCR is fairly innocuous compared to some alternatives.
That’s in fact why some universities patent their research stuff in the first place, to ensure nobody else can. They’ll then make it a policy to take 0€ in licensing fees, but this precludes anybody else from starting to lock the tech behind money.
Source: My uni back in the days had a few dozen patents for exactly this reason, too.
IANAL but patents rely on originality, meaning a preprint of the original paper is basically enough to make the technology impossible to patent. Well probably more than just the paper I guess.
Not anymore. The US switched from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file.” Prior art doesn’t matter for shit.
I learned it too that it has to be “new”. Most likely it is a hell of a lot easier to directly patent it and have a strong legal foundation than just wait around and scramble for proof if it needs to be. Probably also helps being picked up by the industry.
Yep. At max a university will take back its investment amount so that they can operationalize this sort of activity.
Generally these “patented” products from universities are funded via tax payer money. I am not cool with them profiting off something that is intended to save lives and was also funded by the very people who’s lives will be affected.
Putting things behind a patent wall only hinders progress.
A patent also ensures no one else can patent it. If they make it affordable and available they are protected from someone else patenting it and then “profitmaxxing” because they have legal recourse to prevent that.
Of course now it is up to them to do that…
Public universities receive funding from a multitude of sources. Research is typically funded by grants, which may come from state or federal sources, but they can also come from alumni, fundraising, or charitable trusts.
Regardless, patents are a necessary part of invention. As others have pointed out, without a patent, what’s to stop some other entity from coming along and (for example) using your hard work to make themselves rich? I’d wager if it were your invention/discovery, you’d want protections too.
There are some entities out there that would easily abuse patents. But I find it hard to believe a public university would be one of them.