Comment on Insulin

• buddascrayon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  They also don’t make insulin the way that he did back then. Not justifying the price hike cause the way its made now is way cheaper that it was with the old method (which was basically grinding up animal parts to extract insulin). These fucks are just profiting off of the suffering of Americans who have literally no choice but to use their drug.

  youtu.be/naqbi_qVoVY

  source
• Devial@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I mean, that’s better than selling to a private person, still feels weird, since disclaiming a patent is absolutely possible, and has a 100% chance of leading to the desired outcome, vs whatever small chance there may be that the University starts taking profits on it. Or even just sees themselves forced to sell the patent, because of potential financial issues.

  Yeah, the risk is small, but eliminating it in it’s entirety would’ve been easily possible, so it just feels a bit weird he didn’t do it.

  source

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Remember, the 1920s is long ago. Giving the patent to the equivalent of a non-profit organisation was probably better than disclaiming it, since it’s easier to have one large, well-known entity that will fight off people trying to re-patent it than to disclaim it and hope that no patent clerk ever lets a fraudulent re-patent go through.

    In 1920 you couldn’t just google for prior art when fighting a fraudulent patent.

    source

    • Devial@discuss.online ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Ok, that is a fair point I hadn’t previosuly considered. Though disclaiming a patent doesn’t loose you all legal recourse.

      If someone else tries to repatent it, even if it gets approved, you can still file a challenge against the new patent with the PTO. You (or anyone else, really) would also have a virtually guaranteed court win, even if someone got the patent through and tried to enforce it. All you’d have to prove in court is that prior art of the invention exists, therefore the patent is invalid and unenforceable, granted or not, so it’s unlikely someone would even bother trying to enforce such a patent. A previous, diclaimed patent, of literally the identical technology being on record is pretty iron clad and unavoidable evidence that the patent isn’t original.

      source

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Nowadays you just google for other patents and done. But back then, I guess that searching for prior art was quite a lot more difficult. Gifting the patent to an university so that they defend open access to the patent sounds like a more reliable plan.

        I mean, even nowadays patents are greenlit my patent offices even though there’s clear prior art (Nintendo’s recent patent for catching monsters in a ball in a game comes to mind, which Nintendo would have to have patented before publishing their first game with that mechanic around 30 years ago), and even today it’s really difficult and expensive to get such a clear nonsense patent invalidated.

        So difficult that e.g. Palworld opted to change the mechanic instead of fighting the patent.

        So I do understand why someone would instead gift the patent to an university under the condition that they keep access to it open, especially 100 years ago.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • core@leminal.space ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I never heard of disclaiming a patent until just now. Maybe he didn’t know about or it didn’t exiat in the 1920’s

    source