U.S. President Biden now supports waiving vaccine patent protections

[Jingthing]

This will be a big deal for most of the rest of the world. Viruses know no borders. We have no chance of getting things under control without GLOBAL solutions. 

 

Biden administration to waive vaccine patent protection - The Washington Post

Quote

 

The Biden administration supports temporarily lifting intellectual property protections for coronavirus vaccines and will move forward with international discussions to waive them, its top trade negotiator said on Wednesday.

“This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.

 

 

[cmarshall]

During the campaign Biden promised to waive patents on vaccines and now his fulfilling that promise.  What a difference!

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

During the campaign Biden promised to waive patents on vaccines and now his fulfilling that promise.  What a difference!

Did he?

I don't remember either way from the campaign. 

I had heard his initial position in his presidency was not to release them.

My understanding is that it's not the clear black and white issue that it might superficially appear. 

But these are historically challenging times pretty much all over the world. 

So it's good that the U.S. president is showing the  needed flexibility that fits lwith this time of great crisis.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Jingthing

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Did he?

I don't remember either way from the campaign. 

I had heard his initial position in his presidency was not to release them.

My understanding is that it's not the clear black and white issue that it might superficially appear. 

But these are historically challenging times pretty much all over the world. 

So it's good that the U.S. president is showing the  needed flexibility that fits lwith this time of great crisis.

 

Yes, he did unambiguously.  Rachel Maddow played the clip on today's program.

 

As far as I know the patent issue is, or can be made, black and white, but vaccine startup manufacturers would still be hamstring by limited access to raw materials and trained personnel.  So, the US should lead the way in supplying both and there are some indications that we will, although it hasn't yet been settled.  

 

Time is of the essence.  

[Jingthing]

I still think as president he initially opposed releasing the patents so this recent position represents a welcome change of position. If he had fully kept his campaign promise he would have announced his Intention to do this during the first few days of his presidency. Instead understandably his pandemic focus was on vaccination in the U.S.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Jingthing

[simple1]

Very good policy decision.

[cmarshall]

AOC's response is, "Insulin next!"  You go, girl!

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

AOC's response is, "Insulin next!"  You go, girl!

Insulin is still patent protected?

[cmarshall]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Insulin is still patent protected?

 

Sure is.  

 

The cost of the four most popular types of insulin has tripled over the past decade, and the out-of-pocket prescription costs patients now face have doubled. By 2016, the average price per month rose to $450 — and costs continue to rise, so much so that as many as one in four people with diabetes are now skimping on or skipping lifesaving doses.

 

According to a 2017 Lancet paper on insulin price increases, “Older insulins have been successively replaced with newer, incrementally improved products covered by numerous additional patents.” The result is that more than 90 percent of privately insured patients with Type 2 diabetes in America are prescribed the latest and costliest versions of insulin.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expensive

[Thomas J]

Now just to walk you through this scenario.  The USA declared Operation Warp Speed that asked the pharmaceutical companies to expend all necessary amounts at breakneck speed to come up with a vaccine for Covid.  They did it.  Now they are suppose to "give" the results to competitors. 

Now the next crisis occurs and again the government implores pharmaceutical companies to come up with a cure a vaccine or a treatment to "save us"  What incentive does the company now have to spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to solve the problem, knowing that if they just wait, they will get the benefit of other companies developments for free.  As a result, everyone sits around waiting for the other guy. 

I recognize the imperative of getting as much vaccine as possible as soon as possible.  However instead of "confiscating" their patent protections they should work with those companies to come up with a plan to meet certain production capacity.  If the developing company can not come up with the necessary production and has to outsource it, the developing company should be allowed to negotiate with other companies to license its vaccine so that it is compensated for the investment and risk it took in developing it.  To do otherwise just insures they will have little incentive to respond in the future when called upon. 

[simple1]

34 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Now just to walk you through this scenario.  The USA declared Operation Warp Speed that asked the pharmaceutical companies to expend all necessary amounts at breakneck speed to come up with a vaccine for Covid.  They did it.  Now they are suppose to "give" the results to competitors. 

Now the next crisis occurs and again the government implores pharmaceutical companies to come up with a cure a vaccine or a treatment to "save us"  What incentive does the company now have to spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to solve the problem, knowing that if they just wait, they will get the benefit of other companies developments for free.  As a result, everyone sits around waiting for the other guy. 

I recognize the imperative of getting as much vaccine as possible as soon as possible.  However instead of "confiscating" their patent protections they should work with those companies to come up with a plan to meet certain production capacity.  If the developing company can not come up with the necessary production and has to outsource it, the developing company should be allowed to negotiate with other companies to license its vaccine so that it is compensated for the investment and risk it took in developing it.  To do otherwise just insures they will have little incentive to respond in the future when called upon. 

 

US govt spent $10billion on Operation Warp. How much capital / investment funds did US companies spend on development, how many billions have they already received in orders, boost to stock prices etc. Some companies are already providing Covid vaccine at cost etc. Plus of course if the developers went ahead with now providing  IP to offshore manufacturers they likely would claim billions in tax write offs.. In any case US pharma developers have been ripping off the US public for decades with exorbitant profits.

Edited May 6, 2021 by simple1

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

US govt spent $10billion on Operation Warp. How much capital / investment funds did US companies spend on development, how many billions have they already received in orders, boost to stock prices etc. Some companies are already providing Covid vaccine at cost etc. Plus of course if the developers went ahead with now providing  IP to offshore manufacturers they likely would claim billions in tax write offs.. In any case US pharma developers have been ripping off the US public for decades with exorbitant profits

You miss the point.  Irrespective of how much money the government spent.  THEY ASKED THE COMPANIES FOR ASSISTANCE.   If it was agreed to in advance that the government would "fund" the research but in return they would have to forfeit their rights to patent protection OK.  However that is not my understanding.  

These are PRIVATE companies.  Do you favor confiscating TESLA's secrets and passing them on to competitors because you desire to speed up production and sale of electric vehicles.  You say that these companies made money.  First off so what.  Secondly that ignores the numerous companies who invested their own money in a Covid Vaccine and then abandoned the research after they saw that other companies had reached the finish line first. 

What you are really advocating is a "communistic taking" of private property for the public.  Again, if those companies can not meet production targets they should be given at least the right to contract with other suppliers to license their vaccine not have the government confiscate the fruits of its research to be given to competitors. 

While you may think that is good public policy. I would suggest that the next time the world needs to solicit their help in fighting a medical emergency you will get few volunteers since they will see that those who waited, spent nothing, got the same reward as those who spent their money, invested their time, and successfully came up with a cure. 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[Credo]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

You miss the point.  Irrespective of how much money the government spent.  THEY ASKED THE COMPANIES FOR ASSISTANCE.   If it was agreed to in advance that the government would "fund" the research but in return they would have to forfeit their rights to patent protection OK.  However that is not my understanding.  

These are PRIVATE companies.  Do you favor confiscating TESLA's secrets and passing them on to competitors because you desire to speed up production and sale of electric vehicles.  You say that these companies made money.  First off so what.  Secondly that ignores the numerous companies who invested their own money in a Covid Vaccine and then abandoned the research after they saw that other companies had reached the finish line first. 

What you are really advocating is a "communistic taking" of private property for the public.  Again, if those companies can not meet production targets they should be given at least the right to contract with other suppliers to license their vaccine not have the government confiscate the fruits of its research to be given to competitors. 

While you may think that is good public policy. I would suggest that the next time the world needs to solicit their help in fighting a medical emergency you will get few volunteers since they will see that those who waited, spent nothing, got the same reward as those who spent their money, invested their time, and successfully came up with a cure. 

You really want to compare a car to a life-saving vaccine during an international health crisis?   

 

[simple1]

13 hours ago, Thomas J said:

You miss the point.  Irrespective of how much money the government spent.  THEY ASKED THE COMPANIES FOR ASSISTANCE.   If it was agreed to in advance that the government would "fund" the research but in return they would have to forfeit their rights to patent protection OK.  However that is not my understanding.  

These are PRIVATE companies.  Do you favor confiscating TESLA's secrets and passing them on to competitors because you desire to speed up production and sale of electric vehicles.  You say that these companies made money.  First off so what.  Secondly that ignores the numerous companies who invested their own money in a Covid Vaccine and then abandoned the research after they saw that other companies had reached the finish line first. 

What you are really advocating is a "communistic taking" of private property for the public.  Again, if those companies can not meet production targets they should be given at least the right to contract with other suppliers to license their vaccine not have the government confiscate the fruits of its research to be given to competitors. 

While you may think that is good public policy. I would suggest that the next time the world needs to solicit their help in fighting a medical emergency you will get few volunteers since they will see that those who waited, spent nothing, got the same reward as those who spent their money, invested their time, and successfully came up with a cure. 

 

As an example a US govt funded Covid vaccine developer, Moderna, has already waived IP rights. The catch is the knowledge of production which holds back less developed countries from producing the vaccine. As to accusations of communist sympathies, as is not unusual for more than a few ideological extremist driven Americans, you've lost the plot.

Edited May 6, 2021 by simple1

[Chomper Higgot]

14 hours ago, Thomas J said:

You miss the point.  Irrespective of how much money the government spent.  THEY ASKED THE COMPANIES FOR ASSISTANCE.   If it was agreed to in advance that the government would "fund" the research but in return they would have to forfeit their rights to patent protection OK.  However that is not my understanding.  

These are PRIVATE companies.  Do you favor confiscating TESLA's secrets and passing them on to competitors because you desire to speed up production and sale of electric vehicles.  You say that these companies made money.  First off so what.  Secondly that ignores the numerous companies who invested their own money in a Covid Vaccine and then abandoned the research after they saw that other companies had reached the finish line first. 

What you are really advocating is a "communistic taking" of private property for the public.  Again, if those companies can not meet production targets they should be given at least the right to contract with other suppliers to license their vaccine not have the government confiscate the fruits of its research to be given to competitors. 

While you may think that is good public policy. I would suggest that the next time the world needs to solicit their help in fighting a medical emergency you will get few volunteers since they will see that those who waited, spent nothing, got the same reward as those who spent their money, invested their time, and successfully came up with a cure. 

‘Communistic taking’.

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

I don’t recall much talk of ‘communistic taking’ when the US Government provided Big Pharma with immunity from prosecution for harm caused by the vaccines they were developing - Socialized Risks, Private Profits.

 

 

[cmarshall]

In fact, the success of Operation Warp Speed is an excellent example of a different model of drug development that does not involve granting monopolies to drug companies.  The government hires companies like Moderna and pays the cost of development allowing the drug company, say, a 10% profit.  But there is no patent and generic versions become available whose price reflects the cost of manufacture, not development.

 

The problem with Operation Warp Speed is that the Trump admin did not retain patent ownership for the taxpayers who funded the development.

 

By the way, although Pfizer did not take any development funds from the US government, neither did they develop the Pfizer vaccine which was developed entirely by BioNTech whidh did receive $400 million from the German government.  Pfizer merely manufactures the drug that BioNTech developed.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by cmarshall

[Chomper Higgot]

17 hours ago, Thomas J said:

You miss the point.  Irrespective of how much money the government spent.  THEY ASKED THE COMPANIES FOR ASSISTANCE.   If it was agreed to in advance that the government would "fund" the research but in return they would have to forfeit their rights to patent protection OK.  However that is not my understanding.  

These are PRIVATE companies.  Do you favor confiscating TESLA's secrets and passing them on to competitors because you desire to speed up production and sale of electric vehicles.  You say that these companies made money.  First off so what.  Secondly that ignores the numerous companies who invested their own money in a Covid Vaccine and then abandoned the research after they saw that other companies had reached the finish line first. 

What you are really advocating is a "communistic taking" of private property for the public.  Again, if those companies can not meet production targets they should be given at least the right to contract with other suppliers to license their vaccine not have the government confiscate the fruits of its research to be given to competitors. 

While you may think that is good public policy. I would suggest that the next time the world needs to solicit their help in fighting a medical emergency you will get few volunteers since they will see that those who waited, spent nothing, got the same reward as those who spent their money, invested their time, and successfully came up with a cure. 

You are missing some real world facts.

 

1. Individual sovereign nations have the absolute right to ignore the patents and can be expected to do so if it is in their national interest to do so. India and Cuba are two examples of nations with a history of ‘patent busting’ essential medicines.

 

2. The Realpolitik surrounding protecting private profits in the face of a global pandemic and the Realpolitik gains to be made by supporting the removal of the patents.

 

3. The pharmaceutical companies have it in their power to get ahead of the game and make equitable agreements with the many nations who don’t bust patents to supply or locally produce these vaccines under license, they don’t get fat profits but they do get some profits and possibly millions of lives are saved.

 

4. The Pharmaceutical companies are already making vast profits, in part due to the free handout they received from the US Government when they were given immunity from prosecution for harm their vaccines might cause.

 

5. The vaccines themselves are based on publicly funded scientific research, much of which is from universities across the world.

 

6. The US, and other nations, have a long history of busting patents when it is in the national interest to do so.

 

Millions are facing the threat of disease and death, supporting releasing the patents is the right thing to do.

 

It won’t stop the Pharmaceutical companies making a profit, it might force them to stop gouging at the expense of millions of human beings.

 

 

[Thomas J]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. Individual sovereign nations have the absolute right to ignore the patents and can be expected to do so if it is in their national interest to do so. India and Cuba are two examples of nations with a history of ‘patent busting’ essential medicines

Sounds like a real communistic thing to do.  Ask private enterprise to come to assist and when they respond confiscate the fruits of their labor. 

What is next, in your mind.  Confiscating land to put up windmills because it is in the nations interest in having more wind turbines.  How about requiring Tesla to divulge all its secrets to the other car manufacturers because it is deemed important for their "national interest"  Now if you are confiscating the Covid vaccine, why stop there.  Why not require the pharmaceutical companies to divulge all of their research to their competitors because to do so would increase production, lower costs and be beneficial to the national interest.  

The confiscation of property is "Communism"  In the USA even the taking of land under the right of eminent domain requires the government pay for the taking.  As previously stated if you void the patent now, do you really believe the pharmaceutical companies will be so eager to help the next time they are called on.  The right thing to do is to establish required production numbers.  If the company has to "license" its vaccine to others to produce in order to meet those numbers then it will be able to contract with other pharma companies to meet those numbers.  If the government wants to negate the patent then just like taking of land to build a highway, school, or urban renewal project, the government should then BUY THE PATENT and then it would be free to give it away if it so chooses.  

One of the reasons that companies don't locate in countries with unstable political systems is that they fear that the rules today get changed and they can't establish what their permanent rights are.  That is exactly what you are suggesting is OK in the USA/World is to change the rules and just take what others invested their time and money on.  That breeds a mind set that "if they did it once, then why won't they come for my next vaccines, medicine, or medical device" on the premise that it is in their national interest.  So the long term effect would be a cautiousness to invest large sums of money fearing that the fruits of those would only be confiscated.  

If the government wants to give them away, it should do the right thing and pay for that.  Otherwise it should have negotiated up front to pay those companies for their efforts to find a vaccine with the agreement that the product of those efforts belonged to the government not the company. 

[Surelynot]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sounds like a real communistic thing to do.  Ask private enterprise to come to assist and when they respond confiscate the fruits of their labor. 

What is next, in your mind.  Confiscating land to put up windmills because it is in the nations interest in having more wind turbines.  How about requiring Tesla to divulge all its secrets to the other car manufacturers because it is deemed important for their "national interest"  Now if you are confiscating the Covid vaccine, why stop there.  Why not require the pharmaceutical companies to divulge all of their research to their competitors because to do so would increase production, lower costs and be beneficial to the national interest.  

The confiscation of property is "Communism"  In the USA even the taking of land under the right of eminent domain requires the government pay for the taking.  As previously stated if you void the patent now, do you really believe the pharmaceutical companies will be so eager to help the next time they are called on.  The right thing to do is to establish required production numbers.  If the company has to "license" its vaccine to others to produce in order to meet those numbers then it will be able to contract with other pharma companies to meet those numbers.  If the government wants to negate the patent then just like taking of land to build a highway, school, or urban renewal project, the government should then BUY THE PATENT and then it would be free to give it away if it so chooses.  

One of the reasons that companies don't locate in countries with unstable political systems is that they fear that the rules today get changed and they can't establish what their permanent rights are.  That is exactly what you are suggesting is OK in the USA/World is to change the rules and just take what others invested their time and money on.  That breeds a mind set that "if they did it once, then why won't they come for my next vaccines, medicine, or medical device" on the premise that it is in their national interest.  So the long term effect would be a cautiousness to invest large sums of money fearing that the fruits of those would only be confiscated.  

If the government wants to give them away, it should do the right thing and pay for that.  Otherwise it should have negotiated up front to pay those companies for their efforts to find a vaccine with the agreement that the product of those efforts belonged to the government not the company. 

I would have to look back through a lot of posts.......but I am pretty sure this will still prove to be the biggest load of dross I have read on TVN

Edited May 7, 2021 by Surelynot

[Thomas J]

Just now, Surelynot said:

I would have look back through a lot of posts.......but I am pretty sure this will still prove to be the biggest load of dross I have read on TVN

You should certainly know, you shovel a lot of it. 

I have no idea why people think that just because "you want it" or need it, it is OK to have the government confiscate it.  The major asset of a pharmaceutical company is its patents.  The taking of those is no different than a government taking of land to build a school.  The landowner is owed compensation for its loss.  

To think that it is ok for any government to take what belongs to a private individual or company strictly because it wants to is the very essence of communism.  That nothing is truly privately owned but it is all there for the collective good. 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

You should certainly know, you shovel a lot of it. 

????

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

That nothing is truly privately owned but it is all there for the collective good. 

Beer isn't there for the collective good..........a patent free virus for fighting a world pandemic.....mmmmm???

[Thomas J]

21 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Beer isn't there for the collective good..........a patent free virus for fighting a world pandemic.....mmmmm???

As said what gives you and others the idea that somehow because it is deemed to be in the good of the public provides the right to confiscate another property without confiscation escapes me. 

The current system is actually worse than communism.  At least in communism the government owns everything and is responsible for investing its money and if a venture proves unsuccessful takes the loss. 

Here you have the government pleading with private pharmaceutical companies to use 'THEIR RESOURCES' to come up with a vaccine.  Some like Pfizer, Moderna, were successful.  Others like Merck were not.  So you think it is OK to say to Pfizer and Moderna well you use YOUR MONEY, TIME AND RESOURCES as we asked and now we are going to just confiscate your patent and give it away and to Merck well sorry for your losses but we do appreciate your time and effort. 

In WWII the War Production Act 'confiscated" public property for the war effort.  

The Lionel toy train company started producing items for warships, including compasses.

Ford Motor Company produced B-24 Liberator bombers. 

Alcoa, the aluminum company, produced airplanes.

The Mattatuck Manufacturing Company, which had made upholstery nails, switched to making cartridge clips for Springfield rifles.

Would it have been OK for them to expect that the companies were not paid?  After all it was a world crisis.  

The changing of laws to suit the aims of government means there are no laws.  That is a a banana republic where businesses shy away from because they can not count on anything being permanent.  One thing is for sure, if the patents do get vacated the next time there is a world crisis the pharmaceutical companies will be loathe to invest their money, time and effort for a solution knowing that it the end, even if successful they will lose the asset they created.  Nice Outcome. 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

As said what gives you and others the idea that somehow because it is deemed to be in the good of the public......................

....as in preventing a world pandemic (or bringing it under control) to prevent millions of deaths ...........now how on earth might that be for the good of the public?......Much better to see profits maximized and dividends paid surely?

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

.as in preventing a world pandemic (or bringing it under control) to prevent millions of deaths ...........now how on earth might that be for the good of the public?......Much better to see profits maximized and dividends paid surely?

Again, THESE COMPANIES DID EXACTLY THAT.  They came up with the vaccine for bringing the world pandemic under control.  That is what the government ASKED THEM TO DO

If just as in WWII the government wishes to take private property for THE WAR EFFORT it should pay for that taking.   I see nothing wrong with mandating that those companies hit production targets and forcing them to subcontract.  But, to just say, thanks for the billions you spent and congratulations on coming up with a vaccine but now we are going to just give it away to your competitors is worse than communism. 

If the government wants to BUY THE PATENT then it should do so.  If the government under the War Powers Act wants to mandate production to a private company it should facilitate contracts between the vaccine companies and other sub contractors.  That is not maximizing profits, that is preserving the private enterprise system that operates on the basis of private individuals/companies investing money, taking risk and reaping the fruits of their labors.  

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, THESE COMPANIES DID EXACTLY THAT.  They came up with the vaccine for bringing the world pandemic under control.  That is what the government ASKED THEM TO DO

If just as in WWII the government wishes to take private property for THE WAR EFFORT it should pay for that taking.   I see nothing wrong with mandating that those companies hit production targets and forcing them to subcontract.  But, to just say, thanks for the billions you spent and congratulations on coming up with a vaccine but now we are going to just give it away to your competitors is worse than communism. 

If the government wants to BUY THE PATENT then it should do so.  If the government under the War Powers Act wants to mandate production to a private company it should facilitate contracts between the vaccine companies and other sub contractors.  That is not maximizing profits, that is preserving the private enterprise system that operates on the basis of private individuals/companies investing money, taking risk and reaping the fruits of their labors.  

To the best of my knowledge Moderna and Pfizer are making an absolute fortune out of the virus.......read the financial news......AZ isn't because the UK government funded everything from day one.

 

Pfizer's posts $4.9B 1Q profit as vaccine strategy pays off

Selling vaccines during a pandemic has boosted Pfizer’s bottom line and proven that a strategy it embarked upon over a decade ago is now paying off handsomely

Edited May 7, 2021 by Surelynot

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

To the best of my knowledge Moderna and Pfizer are making an absolute fortune out of the virus.......read the financial news......AZ isn't because the UK government funded everything from day one.

 

 

So what if they are making a fortune from it.  Amazon is making a fortune and its success is entirely contingent on the internet which was developed by the U.S. military.  Does that give the USA the right to confiscate Amazon?  NASA invented Teflon and Velcro.  Do you then confiscate all the profits made by companies using those?   The U.S. government developed the GPS system.  So do you take a piece of Garmin, Tom Tom, and of course Google because of Google Maps. 

I have repeatedly said, IF there was any agreement that the government would pay companies for their research and the agreement stipulated that the vaccines developed were the property of the government than it should make those vaccines an open source. 

However that was not the agreement.  Those companies diverted their research resources as requested.  Pfizer specifically declined any government funding.  The fact they are making money from it is a good thing not a bad thing.  Would you preferred they were unsuccessful and lost money but there was no vaccine. 

Russia in 1917 took private property and redistributed it for the "common good"  Cuba following its revolution took properties broke up large farms and redistributed them "for the common good"  

This is no different.  These companies did what they were asked and now exactly because they are successful you believe they should have that success taken away.  So is the issue their profits or is it their inability to meet production?  


If it is profits, I suggest that getting a vaccine that potentially saves my life for $39 USD for two shots from Pfizer, $32 for two shots from Moderna, and $10 USD for one shot from Johnson & Johnson are a bargain.  Those costs include packaging, shipping, and the person injecting the vaccine.  

If it is production then facilitate and orchestrate the licensing of their vaccine with others.  Allow them to do as they do with other drugs receive compensation for their licensing. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/pfizer-vaccine-s-funding-came-from-berlin-not-washington


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2021/04/15/surprising-cost-for-covid-19-vaccine-administration/?sh=7498b088362e

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Amazon is making a fortune and its success is entirely contingent on the internet which was developed by the U.S. military

...........entirely contingent on the WWW developed by Tim Berners-Lee........the internet was a just a precursor.

[Surelynot]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Do you then confiscate all the profits made by companies using those?

Who is talking about confiscating profits?