• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harris Snatching Patents

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
No companies are being destroyed, and neither America, where apparently that practice is legal (I hadn't heard that that was a thing previously), nor Harris are communistic or communists.
They will if their patents are stolen.
You support a man who has contempt for democracy, the law, the truth the military, and the police, yet here you are trying to make the case that Harris is a dictator. That's was his name was introduced into this thread. It's not whataboutism. It's about the difference between a dictator wannabe and a woman that you want to brand as such. Big difference.
No I don't. You have bought into the dem lies about Trump. Again Harris's stance on taking patents away from private companies is the issue here. To me that is anti liberty and freedom and very authoritarian and where in the constitution does it give the government this power?
I guess you don't know what democracy is. A democratic government can take much more than that from you as Trump is discovering.

What makes this democratic is that if it legal to do what she proposes, it's because democratically elected legislators wrote the laws. If she becomes president, that will be democratic as well. And if she uses that too as president, that is here prerogative, because voters gave her the ability.

I've covered that. I told you immediately in my first post that I supported them and why. If you have more questions for me, fire away.

The more interesting topic is why you dragged this out. It's from 2019 and to my knowledge hasn't been part of her campaign. Also, why you think that this approach of trying to depict Harris as a Communist or wannabe dictator will do anything but give people like me a chance to make counterarguments that are more powerful that yours while reflecting badly on you.
The problem is we have a representative democracy that is based on the constitution. Just because a lawmaker passes a law does not mean it is constitutional or our form of democracy. Where in the constitution does it allow the president to take away a patent from a private company? Where is that power?
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
They will if their patents are stolen.

No I don't. You have bought into the dem lies about Trump. Again Harris's stance on taking patents away from private companies is the issue here. To me that is anti liberty and freedom and very authoritarian and where in the constitution does it give the government this power?

The problem is we have a representative democracy that is based on the constitution. Just because a lawmaker passes a law does not mean it is constitutional or our form of democracy. Where in the constitution does it allow the president to take away a patent from a private company? Where is that power?
Hey Clizby, go read your constitution and get back to us where you find patent rights. They are entirely a function of the laws set up by lawmakers and thus can be modified by these same lawmakers in the representative democracy.

Some reading about some of the problems for people who are interested.
PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT PROTECTION BEYOND THE TWENTY-YEAR STATUTORY TERM
Although many life-saving pharmaceuticals on the market have already seen their patents expire, there are countless life-saving pharmaceuticals that still have patent protection, and many more are currently or will be seeking patent protection. Some of these pharmaceutical inventions still have patent protection despite the initial patents having been filed as far back as 1985. The top-ten bestselling brand-name pharmaceuticals have an average projected duration of 40.5-years of patent protection, double the twenty-year statutory term of a patent, through an average of seventy-four patents. This practice of obtaining extended patent protection is known as evergreening. But this is not the only practice that pharmaceutical companies employ to extend patent protection.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They will if their patents are stolen.
If a manufacturer is penalized for price gouging, they'll have to think twice about whether they want to do that again.

You don't need to worry about their profits. As long as they can make a profit, they'll stay in business, or else somebody else will replace them.
Just because a lawmaker passes a law does not mean it is constitutional or our form of democracy.
The remedy for that is the courts. If the manufacturers want to take it to court, a judge or jury will tell them if the law is constitutional, and they can appeal the judgment if they like.
Where in the constitution does it allow the president to take away a patent from a private company?
The Constitution also doesn't say that you can't revoke a patent for cause. It also doesn't say that abortion can be banned, either. It also doesn't say that speeding tickets can be issued, or that foreign military bases can be established, or that proprietors can trespass unwanted customers. I think you get the point.

The Constitution describes how the government is set up. The details of how the country operates are worked out by legislatures and the courts.
You have bought into the dem lies about Trump.
I don't get my opinions about Trump from the Democrats or any editorial source. I get them from hearing and reading Trump.

I can see what the man is without help from anybody beyond those that film and print those words and report his deeds: he's a pathological liar (I hear him lie myself; nobody needed to tell me that), a career criminal and conman (we saw that with his "charity," his "university," his NY business judgment, and his felony convictions), a traitor (insurrectionist, stole state secrets), a wannabe dictator (he said so, and he admires and envies other dictators), a stochastic terrorist (we've heard his words and seen the insurrection and the death threats that have resulted), a sexual predator (according not just to his accusers, but also, the courts), and a serial adulterer (according to his ex-wives).

Those are MY opinions, not received opinions.

You, on the other hand, have been lied to by the Republicans who get their marching orders from those who they represent - in this case, Big Pharma - and apparently had no defense against their indoctrination. You've imbibed it uncritically. You seem to think that those people are fair and honest. They're not, and that's why government regulation is necessary - to protect citizens from the predation and exploitation of the wannabe robber baron capitalists.

And those people don't like it, so they do whatever they can to continue raping the public and despoiling the environment, which includes supporting conservative indoctrination media that teach you to take the positions you have on their behalf and against the interest of yourself and your neighbors. And to defend Trump. And to defame Harris.

It's been incredibly effective, so much so that they've captured about half of American minds and turned them into myrmidons. I consider its electorate incompetent given how close this race is. That wouldn't be possible without conservative propaganda and so many defenseless minds listening to it and allowing it to shape their opinions. And that is very dangerous for ordinary Americans, which I assume describes you.

And it's dangerous for me, too, even though I no longer am under its jurisdiction. All I ask of America is to not invade Mexico, seize our bank accounts here or there, freeze our passports, or steal our Social Security benefits, but I don't think I can count on that because of people who would put people that would do such things into power.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
He's running for president, which means he poses a threat to people's rights, freedoms, and livelihoods. Some people would rather not see America become a ****ty third world theocracy. What's truly weird is that some people actually think that an addled buffoon who's also a treasonous, felonious, adulterous rapist is somehow fit for office.

Disastrous dumpster fires are a bad thing.

@Kathryn didn't say that. Somehow you messed it all up.

Trump is all you people think about. It is weird.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What are the differences between the countries?
Did the foreign companies develop their drugs,
or just manufacture them using someone else's
technology?

Until a company develops a new drug, the sick
have no access to it at all.
Another approach is that if government wants
to help sick people, instead of price regulation
& confiscation, buy the drugs, & give them to
the sick.
Of course, it's more expensive to pay for what
one wants. But this would encourage new
drug development.
I linked the report. The same drug marketed by the same company is being sold on average 4 times cheaper than in US...for ALL prescription drugs!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Short answer....
If a company develops a drug,
it can charge what it wants.

Problem...
If Harris forces prices down, &
confiscates patents, why would
companies develop more drugs, eh.

The long answer is very much above
my pay grade, & beyond the scope
of this thread.
If they won't do it someone else will. After all, profit isn't what has driven a lot of medical research, but the drive to help people.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Healthcare isn't like most businesses. Lots of people get into healthcare because they want to heal and help people. Even new drugs have been made with the intention of not profiting from them so people can get needed drugs.
Tell that to Pfizer and Moderna.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Hey Clizby, go read your constitution and get back to us where you find patent rights. They are entirely a function of the laws set up by lawmakers and thus can be modified by these same lawmakers in the representative democracy.
Changing patent laws is perfectly fine. Retroactively changing them is unconstitutional. Confiscating patents is changing patent law retroactively. Harris said she could take their patents away, she never said anything about working to change patent law.
Some reading about some of the problems for people who are interested.
PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT PROTECTION BEYOND THE TWENTY-YEAR STATUTORY TERM
Although many life-saving pharmaceuticals on the market have already seen their patents expire, there are countless life-saving pharmaceuticals that still have patent protection, and many more are currently or will be seeking patent protection. Some of these pharmaceutical inventions still have patent protection despite the initial patents having been filed as far back as 1985. The top-ten bestselling brand-name pharmaceuticals have an average projected duration of 40.5-years of patent protection, double the twenty-year statutory term of a patent, through an average of seventy-four patents. This practice of obtaining extended patent protection is known as evergreening. But this is not the only practice that pharmaceutical companies employ to extend patent protection.
I am not talking about extending patents. I am talking about Harris's comments that she can take them away.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Tell that to Pfizer and Moderna.

No kidding.

"The below list of the top 10 biggest pharma companies in the world in 2024 is ranked by 2023 revenue for pharmaceutical sales only." $491.84 billion for the top 10.

1. Pfizer - US$58.5bn
2. Johnson & Johnson - US$54.76bn
3. AbbVie - US$54.32bn
4. Merck & Co - US$53.6bn
5. Roche - US$49.9bn
6. Sanofi - US$46.16bn
7. AstraZeneca - US$45.8bn
8. Novartis - US$45.4bn
9. Bristol-Myers Squibb - US$45bn
10. GSK- US$38.4bn

 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Its fine provided that drugs already in the pipeline are grandfathered. If you make things illegal after the fact you destabilize public confidence in law and make the land ruled by judges.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I see no problem with finding ways to make it hard to price gouge drugs that are no longer under paten though. I think price caps are not very smart though. There are smarter ways. For example had the ACA actually created a competitive marketplace then prices could have driven practical change. Fix the ACA if you can, but if you can't do that then presidential orders are not the way to proceed.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Trump is all you people think about. It is weird.
He's running for president, which means he poses a threat to people's rights, freedoms, and livelihoods. Some people would rather not see America become a ****ty third world theocracy. What's truly weird is that some people actually think that an addled buffoon who's also a treasonous, felonious, adulterous rapist is somehow fit for office.

Disastrous dumpster fires are a bad thing.
 
Top