Slashdot Mirror
Violating A Patent As Moral Choice
kuzmich writes "The Taiwanese government has announced that it will violate patent laws to manufacture a drug that can help fight bird flu virus. In doing so, they have spelled out their reasoning very clearly: 'We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche, it means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing'. Not being in Taiwan, this makes me wonder how bad the situation would have to be for some of the other governments to follow a path of violating patent and copyright laws for the benefit of the general population. Are there precedents, procedures for doing so?"
Well, there's always eminent domain. That's a similar concept in the US, where a method is as tangible property as a piece of land is. Some might say owning a process and owning a piece of land both make no sense...
--LWM
Is another Taiwanese company making and profiting form the drug?? I firmly believe that patents should not get in the way of human rights, emergencies, etc. - however, if another company (or Government for that matter) profits from sale - Why have patents?
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
not quite, there is no open source alternative to the vaccine.
-- lol pwned
This is drug industry propoganda.
Investors wouldn't invest my money into a companies if they can't provide a decent ROI.
Yes the public sector might be able to produce drugs cheaper however there is one problem.
Resource allocation, capitalism, as nasty as it is successfully solves this problem. Those who prove to be best at allocating resources get more.
The government isn't good at picking winners and losers. I wouldn't want them to be the only ones to decide which research to pursue.
Mandatory licensing of copyrights or patents is one possible solution to some of the IP problems today.