What happens after the simulation and research papers? What about the vaccines/drugs?

[DarkSwordsman]

So I asked my brother if I could use his spare 970 and 770 for folding, and he brought up a question about patents for drugs from the information.

 

I forgot that I posted a question on the FAH forum about it already. https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=32689

 

So basically what I'm hearing is that if we can find a cure, the simulations are public domain. Also, the papers are, for the most part, free to access.

 

However, at least for the United States, if a pharmacy company wants to patent a drug made from that data and papers and price gouge for it, they can.

 

Does that sound right? Is there anyone at FAH that has acknowledged this? Because I honestly don't think I want to fold anymore if that's the case.

[Theguywhobea]

I think you might be conflating two concepts. I'm not an expert on this so I might be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

 

The research is all public domain, any advances in our understanding on these virus's/ molecules / whatever's is public information at that point.

 

What drug manufacturers patent isn't like, a single chemical, or a single protein or something like that, they simply access this data and create and synthesize a drug from it, likely using information and processes that they developed themselves (or licensed) and that's what they actually hold a patent to. So none of the knowledge gained from F@H is being patented, it's still helping to further human understanding, but companies are likely to use some of that public knowledge to figure out how to create a new product from it that they own a patent or copyright to.

 

It's like how a motherboard manufacture doesn't own the patent or rights to every chip on the board they are producing. And most if not all of the information on how all of those pieces work is public information, but they do own a copyright or patent to the whole board as a product. Ya know, they own the layout of the board, and they own the plans, but the don't own the rights to every single chip and resistor.

 

F@H is not working to create a drug you will be buying from Walgreens, they are working on finding out how all these proteins and viruses work together and publish that information, so someone who DOES want to make a drug and knows how can use that information to do so.

[DarkSwordsman]

Thanks for the reply @Theguywhobea

 

So I understand that the public domain information is separate from the companies that synthesize the drug. I guess my question was more, "If the information is in the public domain, does that also mean there are limits to profits/etc. to the drug(s) that are made from that information?"

 

I as a user can help forward general knowledge, however the vaccines are still up to the country. So in Canada, it's likely that a vaccine for coronavirus for exmaple will likely not cost much or anything at all due to the laws in Canada. However, in the US, because of our healthcare laws and what not, it's totally possible that the same vaccine would be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and might not be covered by health insurance.

 

So basically, the issue of FAH's public domain info and drug companies/healthcare are separate and the results of the vaccine shouldn't influence my efforts for FAH?

[Theguywhobea]

3 hours ago, DarkSwordsman said:

Thanks for the reply @Theguywhobea

 

So I understand that the public domain information is separate from the companies that synthesize the drug. I guess my question was more, "If the information is in the public domain, does that also mean there are limits to profits/etc. to the drug(s) that are made from that information?"

 

I as a user can help forward general knowledge, however the vaccines are still up to the country. So in Canada, it's likely that a vaccine for coronavirus for exmaple will likely not cost much or anything at all due to the laws in Canada. However, in the US, because of our healthcare laws and what not, it's totally possible that the same vaccine would be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and might not be covered by health insurance.

 

So basically, the issue of FAH's public domain info and drug companies/healthcare are separate and the results of the vaccine shouldn't influence my efforts for FAH?

If you want a cure in any form, you should contribute.

 

Public knowledge should never be limited in its use, and it wouldn't make sense to restrict a company from making profit off of something that is public knowledge. That's like the public knowledge that if you have a wheel with a belt on it, and you turn that wheel, it will move the belt which could be used to move another wheel, was restricted and companies couldn't use it or profit from it. In that case, cars probably wouldn't exist, a lot of industry might not exist.

 

I think with Coronavirus a lot of companies want to be known as "The company that saved the world from Coronavirus" and would probably do whatever they could to get that title. I don't think any kind of drug or treatment will be 10 or even thousands of dollars any where, I would be willing to bet it would be similar to a flu shot, or tetanus shot.

[warriorscot]

A neater analogy is that the work being done is like someone writing a textbook and then people going off and using that knowledge. They may then profit from it, but so can everyone else.

 

What you are discussing is largely a political issue locally, but all that same the data is public so any other company anywhere else in the world can then go on and create treatments etc that are then obviously available anywhere.

[07_Sev]

17 hours ago, Theguywhobea said:

The research is all public domain, any advances in our understanding on these virus's/ molecules / whatever's is public information at that point.

This is just a bit false. All research falls under the copyright laws. Universities however usually wave their copyright as they are publicly funded.

 

Also, you can't copyright a fact. Only the wording. So, if someone would discover that F_g=m*a and writes a paper about it. He / She can sell that paper for a profit. But at that point someone else can re-write that paper and freely publish that F_g=m*a. You can't however freely copy the original source as that wording of the fact is still protected by copyright.