Well that’s not true either. Gate is insanely wealthy no matter what IP does, and IP for computer software isn’t under threat whatsoever from this. Again, Gates was never fucking in charge of the oxford vaccine. It’s completely irrelevant, so can we drop it?
1 Like
sLliPpErY slOPe
I’m certainly interested in you digging through my posting history to find proof on how much I hate rich people. I’m sure you remember multiple circumstances of it happening, otherwise you wouldn’t post such a claim. I’m also certain your posting in good faith here. Or maybe your “good faith” posts are just projection🤷♂️?
3 Likes
Wealth is the ownership of property(IP, real estate, stock, etc). It is entirely dependent on the enforcement of laws that define ownership. This is trivially true. Not sure why you are disputing that basic fact.
5 Likes
It is trivially true that everyone is equally rich if there is no law defining and enforcing ownership.
But laws against theft seem like a good idea!
The idea that real estate, computer software IP, stock, or property in general is under threat from this waiver is absolutely ludicrous.
Bill Gates is a child of privilege who made his obscene wealth through monopolistic practices and the theft of the intellectual property of others. He was seen as an asshole as recently as the 90s, at which time he decided that “philanthro-PR,” as MC put it above, was a great strategy to rehabilitate his image. He then proceeded to stick his nose into public health and education, two areas in which he is NOT an expert, along with countless other things his foundation have invested in–including the very journalism outlets that often praise him! He is accountable to NO ONE. There is no democratic means of determining the best use of his money, and governments or journalists who disagree with him risk losing the very funding that Bill controls. That is not a good thing! Having one person wih an insane amount of wealth dictating public policy is not a good thing!
Who fucking cares if he’s learned a little bit about public health along the way–he is not a public health expert and should not be the one making these decisions. Stop going to bat for this man.
18 Likes
Personally, I’d like to have a vaccine patent waiver with the intention of it being the start of tearing down the current IP regime even if it does nothing to actually help the fight against COVID. I’m fine with using public health as a pretext.
Well then the guys holding the IP have nothing to lose.
3 Likes
This week, the US voiced its support for a temporary lift on the patents on vaccinations. But some countries have pushed back, insisting there are better options.
So, does this just come down to money?
No. The waiver would be temporary - and some vaccine makers like AstraZeneca are offering doses at cost.
The key argument from vaccine producers and their home countries is that waiving patents alone wouldn’t solve much. It would, they say, be like handing out a recipe without the ingredients or instructions.
The patent covers the bare bones of the blue print but not the precise production process. That’s crucial here. Vaccines of the mRNA type - such as Pfizer and Moderna - are a new breed and only a small number of people understand how to make them.
AZ already being made around the world under licence (licence includes ingredients and instructions)
It’s so frustrating how often this happens here. People are debating a very specific topic, should IP of vaccines be protected or is Gates an expert in global health policy and the specific discussion is derailed with broad personal critiques of people’s character rather than the idea.
You realize Gates can be rich asshole, global health expert and advocating for vaccine IP because he honestly thinks it’s the best way to maximize the global good?
Maybe he is wrong. I happen to think he is. However, he is not wrong because he is rich, ran Microsoft, was an asshole in the 90’s, is trying to rehab his image with philanthropy etc.
I’m so tired of people thinking “but he is a rich asshole” or “he had bad person X on his podcast” or “he once supported bad idea y” is some kind of magical rhetorical tool that trumps all logic.
If you think he is wrong say why.
1 Like
Gates is wrong because prioritizing IP or “trade secrets” and the private profits derived from them over human well-being during a global pandemic is toxic AF.
You think he’s wrong too, but I didn’t see in your post why you think that is. You seemed to be more focused on admonishing others.
6 Likes
Again, that’s not what happened. Gates prioritized production, and believed that partnering with a major manufacturer would allow for more production. Given that India is producing 90 million or so per month of that same vaccine, it makes it clear that your point isn’t supported by basic facts.
Gates was against a waiver of the IP. He has just now announced that he supports a narrow waiver.
4 Likes
I agree with this sentiment but I do think its fair to criticize billionaires a little more harshly. Not because of any intrinsic character flaws but because they have literally infinite access to all the best thinking from the worlds best experts on any subject. The question should be - is Gates using his voice to amplify the message of the world’s biggest experts, or is he using his voice to suppress their best thinking because its to his benefit?
1 Like
Yeah, this.
He didn’t have a degree in anything when he started Microsoft. I guess he’s not an expert CEO either.
2 Likes
This has nothing to do with my point. You claimed that gates was against a waiver because he prioritized IP and private profits. Gates has said explicitly why he supported a patent initially (he thought it was the best way to ensure speed and quality of production). He had, afaict, zero financial interest in that initial decision. That position makes sense, even if you disagree. Therefore, your point is unsupported.
Yes, I actually believe this to be true. But his worldview is a product of his privileged circumstances (both the privilege that he had as a kid and the privilege he now enjoys as a super-billionaire). The money that he puts towards advancing that worldview is more harmful (or put more charitably, less beneficial) than if his money had been properly taxed and was in the hands of actual public policy experts who weren’t beholden to someone as powerful as Bill for their funding.
I will try to find some specific examples of the harm his policy pushes have caused. One that immediately comes to mind that you may not be as familiar with just due to being non-American is his push for charter schools and Common Core.
3 Likes
We disagree as to why Gates was against the waiver. You believe his stated reasons, I don’t. I’ve never claimed that he had direct financial interest in the waiver. The claim is that he as in interest in general in propping up IP and other property laws. That position makes sense, even if you disagree.
4 Likes