About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Webinar on Crystalline/Solid Form Patents | Main | Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Int'l. Trade Comm. (Fed. Cir. 2021) »

May 16, 2021


Why (and yes, this is a political question) is this falling along a STRICT "R" versus "D" party line?

Does it have to do ( ;-) ) at all with the incredible song and dance being shown by Mr. DeLassus (at many places, but most on display with his "we Pharma are good/there is nothing to see here (even if a wide - as in, MORE than just patent waiver - IP waiver IS enacted) Ostrich imitation at https://www.patentdocs.org/2021/05/population-of-patents-at-risk-from-proposed-wto-patent-waiver.html#comments ?

Could it be the cognitive dissonance of being in the Pharma camp and wanting to STILL be in line with the "D" party "let's do it for Equity sake" mantra?

The more that I read of Mr. DeLassus efforts to 'mitigate' the (more than just patent) IP waiver, the less credibility he seems to have.

You just cannot have two masters in this case -- and trying to serve both comes across as disingenuous on both.

There is simply more than just a patent waiver (as would need be, as has been admitted to along the lines that a mere patent waiver would be entirely NON-effective), and that "more than patent" aspect DOES become a precedent setting game changer for MORE THAN just the immediate world-wide pandemic.

"First, the legislators argued that IP rights are not the bottleneck for worldwide access to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments... [T]he legislators note that the sponsors of the proposed waiver have presented no convincing evidence to support their assertion that IP rights are a significant bottleneck to the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines... ."

This is almost certainly true. This convincing enough of an argument as far as it goes.

"Turning to their second argument, [the group contended that worldwide access to COVID-19 treatments can be expanded without weakening IP rights.]"

This is unassailably true. There are many things that the U.S. can do that will increase the rate of vaccination worldwide much more than will a TRIPS waiver (which, to a first order estimation, will likely have no discernible effect whatever).

"[T]he legislators point out that the United States has, along with its allies, pledged billions of dollars and other resources to support the World Health Organization's COVAX program and the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator initiative... ."

This is both a sorry excuse for an argument, and a galling bit of two-facedness to boot. The money pledged is a pitiful fraction of what is needed to really get ahead of the pandemic. What more, most of these letter signatories (Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louis Gohmert, etc) have spent the last four years railing against foreign aid. How many of them plan to vote *for* the pledged aid?

If they really think that the U.S. should pledge resources instead of supporting IP waivers, they have it easily in their power to introduce legislation to that effect. Have they introduced any such legislation? Well, no, they have not.

There is no reason why anyone should take these gas bags seriously. Some of their arguments are sound, in a sort of stopped-clock-twice-a-day fashion. For the most part, however, this is just the usual empty jawing instead of action that one has come to expect from this group of Congressmen.

....and what of the “D,” Mr. DeLassus? Or does TOTAL non action of the type that you would have the “R’s” do somehow “not count” in comparing “R’s” and “D’s”...?

Talk about your very own “galling bit of two-facedness.”

Any thoughts out there on the strength of the “R” v “D” positions?

Any thoughts out there on this disparity between “pro-Pharma” and “Equity as a ‘D’ platform” driving cognitive dissonance?

cross-referencing (and still silence from the "D's")


The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29