Feds Make a Pharma Patent Grab
A Biden administration ploy could give the federal government control over drug prices.

The Biden administration may take redistribution to new extremes if a policy revision floated in December comes to fruition. The White House wants to give federal agencies the right to seize some pharmaceutical patents when they deem drug prices too high.
President Joe Biden claims authority to act under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which lets nonprofits and small businesses retain ownership of inventions made possible by federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements—so long as they patent and license these inventions. Its impetus was all the innovation languishing under government ownership.
"In 1980, the federal government had approximately 30,000 patents, of which only 5% led to new or improved products," according to the Syracuse University Office of Technology Transfer. The government simply didn't "have the resources to develop and market the inventions."
Under the Bayh-Dole system, it's easier for inventions (including pharmaceuticals) to get from the research stage to the market stage. Since the point of the law is to let the public benefit from innovation, it contains a stipulation saying the government can take ownership of an invention if an institution doesn't commercialize it.
This stipulation, known as "march-in rights," was designed as a safeguard against the system being abused by companies who might purchase licenses solely to keep competitors from using new technology. The government has never actually exercised march-in rights before. But they can apply if a patent holder doesn't commercialize an invention in a timely manner or tries to license it on unreasonable terms, among a few other reasons. Notably, these reasons do not include "the White House thinks it's priced too high."
"The purpose of our act was to spur the interaction between public and private research so that patients would receive the benefits of innovative science sooner," wrote former Sens. Birch Bayh (D–Ind.) and Bob Dole (R–Kan.), in a 2002 Washington Post op-ed. They noted that even when early-stage research was government-funded, the financial and temporal input required from private industry was still substantial. "Bayh-Dole did not intend that government set prices on resulting products" or be able to revoke a license "contingent on the pricing of a resulting product."
Now the Biden administration wants to allow use of the law in a way its creators explicitly stated it was not intended to be used. "When drug companies won't sell taxpayer-funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less," White House economic adviser Lael Brainard told reporters in December.
To this effect, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Commerce have proposed a new framework that allows price to be a factor in determining whether to exercise march-in rights. If enacted, it would effectively give the government control over the price of drugs.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it would effectively give the government control over the price of drugs.
Did you read your own story, Liz? It would give that control to government only over the price of drugs developed at taxpayer expense.
Yeah, I keep hearing people bitch about this, and while this may very well be the first time I have thought that there may be a justification for the feds seizing anything from private industry, "the taxpayers funded it" is remarkably compelling.
Don't climb into bed with the Devil and then come across all shocked when you get fucked.
But given the special treatment that almost all enterprises get in some way, from taxes and subsidies to other more subtle support, what are the odds that a progressive regime like under Biden would claim that almost all products result from taxpayer support, and thus should be subject to price controls?
You broke the code.
Given how the Fed has it's thumb on just about every scale, the notion that they can seize patents because they had their thumb on that scale in particular is a massive Federal takeover of...well everything.
Does every ENB story turn into a sex worker story?
When your only tool is a snatch, every problem is a dick.
ENB should focus on getting us our sandwiches.
"Taxpayer expense", per the study cited, is usually only a portion of total expense, and often a small fraction, or else a claim that a product uses prior studies that are taxpayer funding (in whole or part) as a steppingstone.
"Your scientists used public roads to commute to their job developing a drug? Guess what we own it now."
And they were educated in public schools, used energy produced from public lands, and got their paychecks in the public mail. I guess we public own everything that everyone produces.
It's called Communism.
Obama said it best "you didnt build that."
Updated version: "You don't own that."
"It’s called Communism."
It's called MAGA-ism today, which is next to MAGic!!! Blame shit ALL on the illegal sub-humanoids and those who REFUSE to OBEY-OBEY-OBEY, and ALL will be swell!!!!
Democracy schamocracy!!! Who needs shit?!?!?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-claims-he-did-not-swear-an-oath-to-support-the-constitution-as-president/vi-BB1gY2zq
Trump claims he did not swear an oath to ‘support’ the constitution as President
Trump Disloyal To America: Leading GOP Candidate Refuses To Sign Loyalty Oath For The Government He Would Be Sworn To Protect
Trump's campaign refused to sign a pledge in Illinois not to overthrow the government when registering for the primary ballot. The pledge requires candidates to promise not to advocate overthrowing the US or state governments by force. Trump signed in 2016 and 2020, and his campaign gave no reason for not signing now. A Biden campaign spokesman said Trump can't sign because he tried to overthrow the government on Jan 6. At Iowa rallies, Trump bizarrely claimed the Civil War could have been negotiated and praised China.
(I know better than to respond to SQRLSY but anyway...)
So how about Biden's pledge to uphold the Constitution? And the fact that justices appointed by Trump have actually been an effective stop against the extra-legal shenanigans of the current regime?
The Meeting of the Right Rightist Minds will now come to Odor!
Years ago by now, Our Dear Leader announced to us, that He may commit murder in broad daylight, and we shall still support Him! So He Has Commanded, and So Must Shit be Done!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters
And now, oh ye Faithful of the Republican Church, Shit Has Become Known Unto us, that Shit is also in His Power and Privilege Ass Well, to murder the USA Constitution in broad daylight. Thus He Has Spoken, and Thus Must Shit Be Done! Thou shalt Render Unto Trump, and simply REND the USA Constitution, and wipe thine wise asses with shit! Do NOT render unto some moldering old scrap of bathroom tissue! Lest we be called fools, or worse!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
Proud Boys, STAND with TRUMP, and stand by! And if ye don’t agree 110%, then we don’t need you polluting our world, because all who disagree with us in ANY way are LEFTISTS!!!
There, I think that’s a wrap! I’ve covered shit ALL! You can take the rest of the day off now.
(You’re welcome!)
Trump in DC speech calls for death penalty for convicted drug dealers
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3575157-trump-in-dc-speech-calls-for-death-penalty-for-convicted-drug-dealers/
Suggested murder charges for women who have abortions in 2016.
So now WHERE do we get an effective stop against the depredations of an infinitely unquenchable thirst for more POWER-POWER-POWER and self-righteousness, from egotistical and narcissistic, pussy-grabbing, punishment-lusting power pigs? Twat about THAT?
SQRLSY is obviously rabid and should be put down.
Hey Punk Boogers! HERE is your “fix”! Try shit, you might LIKE shit!!!
https://rentahitman.com/ … If’n ye check ’em out & buy their service, ye will be… A Shitman hiring a hitman!!!
If’n ye won’t help your own pathetic self, even when given a WIDE OPEN invitation, then WHY should ANYONE pity you? Punk Boogers, if your welfare check is too small to cover the hitman… You shitman you… Then take out a GoFundMe page already!!!
Yeap. Have direct experience talking with government lawyers regarding this concept. They believe if a single government dollar is used, they own the totality of the project.
Was in a meeting discussing an algorithm that had a lot of company funded IRAD behind it. Government sent a contract modifying the code for support a specific use case. The government then tried claiming total ownership, not just what was modified under government contract.
One of the scenarios used during the discussion of these rights. Lawyer for company said “we sell you peanut butter and jelly sandwiches using our recipes for bread, jelly, and butter. You buy the sandwich and how to put ingredients together to form a sandwich.” The government side stated they owned the recipe for the bread butter and jelly as well.
Have direct experience talking with government lawyers regarding this concept. They believe if a single government dollar is used, they own the totality of the project.
If a single government dollar is used, the results of the project ought to be public domain (not "owned by the government").
You don't like it? Don't take public funding.
So you didnt bother reading the damn entire post as most of the anti intellectual property morons dont.
If the government buys a computer with windows do they own the source code for windows?
In my case they bought a PRODUCT that required a slight modification. They didn’t fucking spend money on development other than the slight mod. They demanded the entire development costs.
Fuck off with your ignorance.
What you demand is close to fascism lol.
If the government buys a computer with windows do they own the source code for windows?
No, because that is a purchase contract for an existing piece of intellectual property.
In my case they bought a PRODUCT that required a slight modification. They didn’t fucking spend money on development other than the slight mod. They demanded the entire development costs.
Yes, it sounds like you screwed up. You shouldn't discuss proprietary algorithms with any partner without iron-clad agreements; that's true whether your partner is government or private. That's because your partners may well have the impression that the algorithm described in the discussions was, in fact, a result of those discussions. Get better lawyers.
But whatever happened to you has nothing to do with government subsidized drug development or patent grants.
It is entirely clear your ignorance on this subject matter.
Yes, it sounds like you screwed up. You shouldn’t discuss proprietary algorithms with any partner without iron-clad agreements;
Example of said ignorance. There are multiple types of rights involved here. Proprietary, government use rights, government furnished rights. It goes from full protection, to free use by government, to can be used for their own development other even given to a competitor.
Government always tries for the furnished rights. Based on your desire to steal property if even a single dollar is spent.
That’s because your partners may well have the impression that the algorithm described in the discussions was, in fact, a result of those discussions. Get better lawyers
And more ignorance. Company spends millions tracking the color of money. They spend millions fighting government over the color of money. Government is using your tax dollars to steal and push beyond agreements made at the start.
Your entire belief system is built on utter ignorance of the problem.
But whatever happened to you has nothing to do with government subsidized drug development or patent grants.
And final example of ignorance. Patent systems can be built off of prior patents. Extensions of ideas from one to a new idea is common. If you build a unique problem off of a patent with a free license, you do not give your rights up for the new patent. Yet this is what you demand.
Your entire theory of this system is theft from inventors. It is wrong and fascist.
Stop relying on ignorance and talk this over with someone who lives in this industry.
Your ire against government spending isn’t satiated by your support of government taking. Fuck off.
Stop relying on ignorance and talk this over with someone who lives in this industry.
I have had many millions of dollars in government contracts and research funds over my career. I have no sympathy for people like you. You and your company obviously don't know what you are doing on intellectual property rights, and the sooner you go out of business, the better.
Your entire theory of this system is theft from inventors. It is wrong and fascist.
You have people like Fauci and the NIH developing patentable inventions with government funding, granting billions in research grants to private companies, and having a revolving door between government and the private sector, while profiting enormously from the system at the expense of taxpayers. Similar mechanisms exist in IT and military contracting and research. That is the system you advocate: that is fascism.
All of this kerfluffel over a little "nationalization" of overpriced products to accomplish public good. This is merely a benevolent government wanting to do more good to somebody.
The concern is greatly overplayed. After all, they're not talking about killing the patent holders or imprisoning them in durance vile - just making them disgorge the ill-gotten lucre they're trying to "gain". Perhaps they could litigate individual patents through Judge Engoron's court, with provisions that the government could take possession of the contested patents until (ten or twelve years down the line) the cases come up for adjudication in the monkey court.
“Taxpayer expense”, per the study cited, is usually only a portion of total expense, and often a small fraction,
Look, the rules ought to be: if you take public funding on your project, the results ought to be freely available. If you don't like it, don't take public funding.
The kind of system where the government hands out grants and then allows corporations to take out patents on the results isn't just unfair to taxpayers, it encourages widespread corruption. Look at the kinds of money people like Fauci received as kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry.
So, there also ought to be a second rule (in fact, a rule that many European nations have): if you work for the government, any money you receive from private industry goes into the public coffers 100%: no on-the-side consulting, no patent revenue sharing, nothing.
Again with the idiocy. Microsoft takes government funding when they buy a computer with windows OS. Your belief system is government now owns Windows. Lol.
Often times a corporation will spend 95% of the research and development costs. Government takes interest and funds MODIFICATION for a specific use they want. The company would not have modified it for that use on their own. It is specific to a CUSTOMER request. Government doesn't get ownership for being a customer.
Your entire belief system is now that government owns full rights to a product.
But please, support government takings. Youre the one for liberty here. Lol.
Often times a corporation will spend 95% of the research and development costs. Government takes interest and funds MODIFICATION for a specific use they want. The company would not have modified it for that use on their own. It is specific to a CUSTOMER request. Government doesn’t get ownership for being a customer.
Customers may well acquire intellectual property rights to your products if they suggest modifications during sales discussions. This kind of thing is common in many commercial scenarios and has nothing to do with whether the customer is the government or not. It is the job of your legal team to make sure that this does not happen.
Your entire belief system is now that government owns full rights to a product.
My belief system is that commercial transactions are governed by laws and contracts.
Contracts between the government and the private sector ought to be such that if the government subsidizes the private sector, the entirety of the results of those subsidies enter the public domain, where “the entirety” is defined clearly in the contract. If your company doesn’t like that, don’t sign the contract. Under US law, the US government apparently can revoke these patents if it contributed to the funding; those were the conditions the companies accepted when they accepted government funding.
Under patent law, if ideas are developed as part of discussions with customers, then they are co-inventors and need to be treated as such. If you don't want obligations to them, you need to create contracts dealing with that prior to such discussions.
Furthermore, my belief system aligns with the US Constitution, namely that patents and copyrights are temporary monopolies granted for the benefit of the public; they are not something that you, the government, or anybody else has some inalienable right of ownership to.
Customers may well acquire intellectual property rights to your products if they suggest modifications during sales discussions.
If you agree to sell your rights.
Example. GPL license. Its use just means you distribute the source of the codebase of the license. You do not give up the rights to the code you build utilizing the product under GPL. Again. You seem completely ignorant to the issue.
My belief system is that commercial transactions are governed by laws and contracts.
And you are advocating changing those terms because government spent a dollar during development. Again. Fuck off.
Under patent law, if ideas are developed as part of discussions with customers, then they are co-inventors and need to be treated as such.
100% false. You are confusing employment contracts that give up rights to patents while employed with patent law. Patent law is strictly first to file. If you are under contract giving up rights, company has first right to file. If no contract there is no codevelopment aspect to patents.
Furthermore, my belief system aligns with the US Constitution, namely that patents and copyrights are temporary monopolies granted for the benefit of the public; they are not something that you, the government, or anybody else has some inalienable right of ownership to.
And end with a non sequitur because thr discussion at hand is the patent exclusive use under a time frame, not expired patents.
The FDA is at the heart of generics on expired patents. Not patent law.
Again, you seem to be arguing from a first order impression without doing any homework on the subject at hand.
"Customers may well acquire intellectual property rights to your products if they suggest modifications during sales discussions."
If you agree to sell your rights.
If the modifications your customers suggest end up in your product, your customers may have property rights to your product. And they have you by the balls; their demands don't have to be reasonable or proportional to their contribution. If your lawyers don't understand this basic concept, that's your problem. That's why you need to craft careful NDAs before discussions with customers, including the government.
100% false. You are confusing employment contracts that give up rights to patents while employed with patent law.
Employment contracts have such clauses because otherwise the employees would have independent rights in the patent, regardless of who files. And that's why you need similar clauses in your NDAs with customers.
Again, you seem to be arguing from a first order impression without doing any homework on the subject at hand.
If the government can claim intellectual property rights to your product after discussions with you, that's not government overreach, that is simple legal incompetence by your lawyers. Oracle or Microsoft would have you over a barrel the same way.
"And they have you by the balls; their demands don’t have to be reasonable or proportional to their contribution. If your lawyers don’t understand this basic concept, that’s your problem. That’s why you need to craft careful NDAs before discussions with customers, including the government."
I agree with that. The government always tries to grab full rights to everything involved in any project. Big customers try to do it too. Providers must be aware of that, assert the restrictions to rights provided and on which elements. Lawyers need to be clear about those.
I've had to remind our own lawyers of that more than once.
“Again with the idiocy. Microsoft takes government funding when they buy a computer with windows OS.”
I’m with NOYB2 on this one, grants and subsidies for development are not the same thing as remuneration for goods received.
If I gave Microsoft funding to develop the windows OS we have a very different relationship to me purchasing a copy.
I hope corporations will realize soon that public/private partnerships are historically known by a different name.
Okay. Simple example since there seems to be a disconnect.
You work with buddies on some type of drone used for mapping canyons and mines. Government sees the technology is interested. They fund you to add support of the drone for a set of different sensors to be attached for whatever reason. You write the control algorithms, new data storage algorithms, device drivers for the sensors. Then sell it off to the government.
The government funded SOLELY the development of an extension of their product for a specific reason. Under most government contract law the government would own rights directly to what they funded. The specific algorithms for using the sensors they wanted, device drivers, etc.
What the government tries to do is take rights of the entire drone they based extension off of. That is what is being argued here.
In patents, extending a NEW patent off an existing patent happens all the time. If the prior patent is government funded, what NOYB2 is demanding is the new patent also fall under government/public use.
This will discourage invention off of any government funded public use patent. It is pure idiocy.
The government funded SOLELY the development of an extension of their product for a specific reason. Under most government contract law the government would own rights directly to what they funded.
This is not a matter of “contract law”, it’s a matter of the specific contract terms you signed.
If the prior patent is government funded, what NOYB2 is demanding is the new patent also fall under government/public use.
I demanded no such thing. If you file a patent as part of a (partially) government funded research project, then that patent should be in the public domain. If government funding ends and you subsequently develop new technologies and patent those, obviously, those new patents are yours.
This will discourage invention off of any government funded public use patent. It is pure idiocy.
What is pure “idiocy” is your confabulations and delusions. Whatever your company is, it deserves to go out of business.
like $500k on a $500 million drug development bill
This statement underscores a critical perspective on the concept of “taxpayer expense.” It highlights that while taxpayers may indeed contribute to funding certain studies or projects, the total expense is often multifaceted and includes various sources of funding beyond just taxpayer money.
Moreover, it points out that products or initiatives may leverage prior studies supported by taxpayer funding as a foundation for further development. This nuanced understanding challenges simplistic interpretations of taxpayer expense and encourages a deeper examination of the complex financial dynamics involved in research and innovation.
Did you read your own post, Vernon Depner? Or did you write it while sleep-walking, or under the remote mind cunt-rolls of the Lizard People?
PS, I have talked to (mostly butt not always left-leaning) people who argue that Government Almighty REALLY-actually owns, or at least be given credit, for EVERYTHING, because, after all, they pay for cops-courts-roads-bridges etc.!!! Ass I recall, Oh-Bummer used to say shit like that... "You didn't build that."
And the income tax will never apply to anyone that is not a millionaire, got any other sacrosanct promises from paid liars you firmly believe?
See Wood-Head Wilson... "I will NOT send the boys off to war!"
See POTUS H. W. Bush, "Read my lips, no new taxes!"
See Trump, Make America Great Again... Now, America (under Trump) threatens to soon become the worlds MOST powerful example of a ONE party state, where only votes for the CORRECT party will be counted as NOT fraudulent!
Here’s a poll that says 77% of Republicans believe the 2020 election wasn’t conducted fairly.
https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-q-poll-republicans-believe-fraud-20201210-pcie3uqqvrhyvnt7geohhsyepe-story.html
Others believe the Big Lie… You should believe it, too!
In the late-1920s Germany, no doubt, there were more and more, louder and louder calls to investigate “Jews stabbed Germany in the back on the WW I battlefields” theories… Because, after all, where there’s smoke, there’s fire! If there wasn’t SOME truth to these claims about the dastardly Jews, then WHY do so many people believe that? Surely, there wouldn’t be ANY harm in investigating this some more!
https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?
Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).
Most of the people who support Biden, and possibly even this particular move, as well as pretty much all people who think that a price that someone somewhere in the world can't afford (or doesn't want to pay) is "unreasonable", tend to believe that pretty much every significant drug has been developed almost exclusively with government funding.
True. They also have a view of the market that is less developed than my 5 year old grandson's view. We are dealing with people who think they can stop inflation by simply asking business to cut prices... If that doesn't work, just tell them to cut prices.
Typical fascism.
If the drug is "overpriced", then it is clearly commercialized, and not eligible for (legal) take over.
But if supreme court rulings don't mater, what chance does a little old regular law stand?
Root cause analysis:
The government funding anything not specifically authorized in the constitution.
^BINGO +10000000000
Yes. JesseAz's and NOYB2's argument above is another example of all the side effects of government getting involved where it has no business.
I have no problem with not spending government dollars.
I have a problem with people advocating taking of others as restitution for that spending.
If spending is the actual issue, argue against the spending. But saying government can now steal due to that spending, quite frankly fuck off.
If spending is the actual issue, argue against the spending. But saying government can now steal due to that spending, quite frankly fuck off.
I am simply saying that government contracts should be written such that if you choose to accept government research funding, the results of that research (including patents) should be in the public domain.
Don't like it? Don't accept government research funding.
There is no stealing involved, except in your delusional mind.
Just because you abhor profit and don't mind unconstitutional government spending doesn't justify government taking 100% ownership when contributing 1% of funding. No commercial contract would ever be so ludicrous. Why do you think government should have such extra special powers?
Just because you abhor profit
I don’t “abhor profit” at all. I abhor corruption.
and don’t mind unconstitutional government spending
Government funding of research is clearly not “unconstitutional” under current US law. Whether I think it’s a good idea is another matter. But given that it is happening, we get to set the policies, and I believe the policy ought to be that if you take government funding for a project, the results of that project should be in the public domain.
doesn’t justify government taking 100% ownership when contributing 1% of funding. No commercial contract would ever be so ludicrous.
Many commercial contracts are of the form “if we contribute to this project, the entire project must be in the public domain”.
Why do you think government should have such extra special powers?
I don’t think government should have extra special powers. To the contrary, I think government should be restricted to offering research contracts of the form “if you accept research funding under this contract, all results from the research project must be in the public domain”. It is then entirely your choice whether you accept public funding under those conditions.
As for Biden using Bayh-Dole to go back to old pharmaceutical contracts and patent grants, it’s a legal question whether that falls under the conditions of Bayh-Dole. Personally, I think Bayh-Dole should be abolished altogether because it leads to corruption.
You abhor corruption so much you're here supporting it.
You abhor corruption so much you’re here supporting it.
Really? How am I supporting "corruption"? Please tell me! This ought to be interesting!
"I have a problem with people advocating taking of others as restitution for that spending."
No offense, but I do not have a problem with it.
If you know "If I take this money, then this will happen" --- that is on you. You made the decision.
Simply do not take the government's money.
View the government the same as the mafia. Do not take ANYTHING from them. Do not let them "give" you anything. If you do, they then own you.
The US profits from drugs pays for world-wide pharmaceutical research. It isn't just the cost of research and production of the drug being sold that has to be paid for, but also all the drugs that were developed but didn't work.
We can pretty easily have cheap drugs in the US as in Canada and elsewhere, but most new drugs not almost ready for market already will never be made. If we count on government labs, we will wait forever.
The US profits from drugs pays for world-wide pharmaceutical research.
That's nice and all that, but if the US taxpayer pays for research, then the resulting research should be freely available.
"That’s nice and all that, but if the US taxpayer pays for research, then the resulting research should be freely available."
Sarc or stupidity?
Please tell us of one good which is "free".
Please tell us of one good which is “free”.
All expired patents and all expired copyrights are free. Everything placed in the public domain is free.
Sarc or stupidity?
I don't know, you tell me: which are you?
You do know that patents that have lapsed are already free for use right? What the fuck.
The main problem with production of generics is approval by the FDA for production. It is not a fucking patent issue.
Yes, and just like lapsed patents, any patent that comes out of a (partially) publicly funded research project should be free for use by anybody.
Your point being?
You do realize you're arguing for theft, not repayment, royalties or even distribution terms but outright theft.
You do realize you’re arguing for theft, not repayment, royalties or even distribution terms but outright theft.
WTF? I am saying that future government research ought to be written such that anybody who takes that research grant agrees to making all results public domain. How is that 'theft"?
As for the legitimacy of Biden canceling past patent licenses, that is a purely legal question that I have no opinion on; as far as I'm concerned, if you signed patent license agreements with the government, you deserve to get what you signed up for, good and hard.
Well if we go by that reasoning then everything being paid to Government employees from outside sources should go to the General Fund. Dr. Fauci comes to mind.
That's the way it works in other countries: if you are a public sector employee, you cannot accept payments from the private sector; any moneys your receive you must give to the government's public fund. It's a sensible and reasonable rule for public sector employees.
"That’s nice and all that, but if the US taxpayer pays for research, then the resulting research should be freely available."
The US Taxpayers paid for 100% of the research in the Manhattan project, and for the design of every US-built nuclear warhead from "tactical" sized artillery shells (easily converted to a "suitcase nuke" or carried in a backpack) to the largest strategic warheads capable of leveling major cities with one or two devices.
Where do you suggest we publish those plans? Would posting them on a website be sufficient, or should they be run in a special edition of the NYT and WaPo? Maybe require people to send a SASE to the publishing office in Pueblo, CO?
"If we count on government" ... Already there.
The US profits from drugs pays for world-wide pharmaceutical research.
Nice theory but it isn’t true. EVERY new drug patent in the US relies on public (taxpayer) funding of research. Most patents in the US aren’t even innovative patents. They are merely extensions intended solely to suppress competition. Even so – even those involve public funding (through grants to academia that are basically cronyist subsidies to researchers who prefer academia where they benefit from research rather than corporations where they don’t get much benefit). And far more for truly new molecular entities or targets. Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals – 2011-2016.
This is not a rationale for public funding. In large part because 2/3 of the government funding in question is investigator-initiated research NOT government-initiated research. IOW – there is a massive crony/corruption risk that is not controlled by either transparency or accountability or any public discussion of the goal of govt research. In that absence, you can bet that neither ideologies (like this ‘Corruption’ shitrag) nor partisans are doing anything to deal with either transparency or accountability.
But pharma profits are used mostly to generate outsized returns to shareholders – not to generate outsized requirements to spend money on research.
Just to give one example where the goal itself of government research has been corrupted. One of the (reasonable imo) goals of govt research is "enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” Wonderful. Except what if that is achieved through something other than patents and pharma?
eg basic prevention of disease. We simply don't do much of that research precisely because the pig trough full of patent seekers is far better at getting govt grants than is the broader population seeking to enhance health. To give one example of where that research COULD go. There was a 2015 article in Atlantic called - Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980's. It was based on a study of US data (by Canadian researchers) that concluded that even if people ate the same stuff and exercised the same and everything else, that obesity would be higher now than then. They speculated on what might have changed ceteris paribus outcomes - higher use of antidepressants, different microbiome, diet sodas and cephalic insulin release, chemicals that may be changing hormones, etc. That research has gone nowhere that pharma/industry don't want it to go. And it's not because Big Evil is evil but because we simply don't do anything unless 'Big' benefits.
Also, high US drug prices are subsidizing government-dictated prices in other countries. If the USA starts instituting price controls, worst fallout could likely be the fiscal collapse of the NHS in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Canada may be ahead of the curve on that one though, since they've already had the idea of allowing expansion of the national euthanasia laws to include mental illness, eating disorders, and poverty; they can just have the public hospitals kill off anyone who can't afford the cost of private insurance to cover their prescription meds (or did their "single payer" system actually start covering those at some point?).
The White House wants to give federal agencies the right to seize some pharmaceutical patents when they deem drug prices too high.
No, not all patents, only patents developed with taxpayer money.
President Joe Biden claims authority to act under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which lets nonprofits and small businesses retain ownership of inventions made possible by federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements—so long as they patent and license these inventions. Its impetus was all the innovation languishing under government ownership.
Apparently, the "Libertarian" position is now that government should steal from taxpayers, hand out that money to well connected businesses, and then, to add insult to injury, grant those businesses 20 year monopolies on the resulting technologies. Evidently, Reason-style "Libertarianism" has nothing to do anymore with free markets or small government.
For reference, the actual libertarian positions are that (1) tax dollars should not be used to subsidize private research, (2) if tax dollars are used to subsidize research, the results should be freely available, (3) current copyright and patent terms are too long and onerous.
Maybe third time will be the charm.
The issue isn't the rights to a modification or portion of government funded study. The issue is the TAKING of money not spend through government projects because government money was spent on a small portion of a development.
Your state government likely contracts to put various utilities to your house, say a sewer line. You use the sewer line with your house. Maintenance of the sewer line is funded with taxpayer money through property taxes. This sewer line provides a benefit. Does government own your fucking house now?
Youre intentionally misunderstanding quite a bit of the article.
The issue is the TAKING of money not spend through government projects because government money was spent on a small portion of a development.
It's irrelevant whether the public portion was small or large: if you accept funding, you accept the conditions of funding that go along with it.
Furthermore, you have no rights to a patent. A patent is a temporary monopoly granted by the government in order to benefit society. All that is happening here is that the government is not granting you a patent under certain conditions.
Perhaps you missed the relevant part of TFA.
Biden is trying to change the conditions after the fact.
Well, if Biden is "trying to change the conditions after the fact", then a court will strike this down.
As far as I can tell “the White House thinks it’s priced too high" is pretty much equivalent to "tries to license it on unreasonable terms".
More generally, I think Bayh-Dole was a horrible law, opening the door to widespread corruption. It should be repealed, and we ought to have a simple rule: if you accept public research funding, your research results need to be placed in the public domain. Furthermore, for-profit companies should be excluded from all public research funding. That way, there is clarity for everybody.
Why does profit scare you? You sound like prudes, where the mere hint of profit turns every endeavor into something sinful.
And why should accepting $1 of government funding override $1M of private investment?
Just quit government funding, period.
Why does profit scare you?
Profit doesn't scare me. What scares me is when specific, well-connected companies and institutions profit from government subsidies.
And why should accepting $1 of government funding override $1M of private investment?
The only legally clear way of drawing a line is "if you accept any government funding, then your results must be in the public domain". That way, the market decides at which point the tradeoff between government funding and public domain requirements makes accepting government funding worth it.
Just quit government funding, period.
Yes, government funding of private research should end altogether. But as long as we have it, the rule that "if you accept government funding for your research, the results must be public domain" limits the bad effects of government funding.
Your inconsistency is seldom so blatant.
Profit either scares you or it doesn't. You make quibble that you are using two different forms of the word, but that's what earns lawyers and bureaucrats their reputation.
Profit in the general sense is reward for doing something, whether as salaries or dividends.
Profit can be the result of free market activities, innovation, trade, comparative advantage, etc. These are good, desirable profits. These are the kinds of profits libertarians like.
Profit can also be the result of rent seeking, subsidies, regulatory capture, and corruption, generally, the result of violations of the NAP. Libertarians object to violations of the NAP.
If you don’t see a distinction between those two, well, that’s your problem.
It's telling that you object to profiting from subsidies more than to the subsidies themselves.
It’s telling that you object to profiting from subsidies more than to the subsidies themselves.
Yes, it tells you that I am a realist.
I have been clear that I object to all government grants for research, to universities, institutes, and companies. However, that is politically unachievable.
What is politically achievable is to demand that any government research grants made to any institutions or corporation require that all research results under that research grant be put in the public domain. In practice, that has a similar effect to abolishing subsidies for private research.
It’s irrelevant whether the public portion was small or large: if you accept funding, you accept the conditions of funding that go along with it.
And this is where your ignorance shines through.
Government contracts with thousands of companies. Guess we should just go to Italian Fascism.
And this is where your ignorance shines through. Government contracts with thousands of companies.
We aren't talking about "government contracts", we are talking about government funding for research. Let's talk again when you can keep such basic distinctions straight in your head.
Guess we should just go to Italian Fascism.
Well, that is certainly the system you seem to favor.
No, it is the one you're supporting we model after.
The current system is one in which government retains intellectual property and then licenses it to crony capitalist corporations; that is the system you defend. It is deep government intervention in the economy and in research; it is fascist.
I am saying that all research funded by the government should be public domain. That is, every corporation can use the results of government funded research; no corporation needs a license from the government. That is the libertarian position.
“… if you accept funding, you accept the conditions of funding that go along with it.”
I could find nothing in this article or elsewhere that says that the government licensing an invention to a private developer means that the private developer accepted any funding from the government to develop that product. It's more likely that the private company used private investment funding to develop, test and market the product under that license with no further funding from the government.
I could find nothing in this article or elsewhere that says that the government licensing an invention to a private developer means
Sorry for not being clearer. The inventions that the government is licensing were themselves developed with government funding to universities, research institutes, and/or private corporations; that's how the government obtained ownership of those patents in the first place.
I am saying that any such inventions (patents, etc.) created with government funding ought to be in the public domain. Then the question of who to license these inventions to and whether they are using them under "fair" conditions goes away.
It' hard to justify government's granting exclusivity to any business based partly on government investment, but it's been done since time immemorial. Whether it's drug patents or use of right of way infrastructure such as conduits or canals, there are arguments both ways.
Justification? We don't need no stinkin' justification! We don't care! We don't have to! We're the government!
It’ hard to justify government’s granting exclusivity to any business based partly on government investment
The government has the exclusivity already! That's how it can license the patents in the first place.
The government should lose the exclusivity; that is, any government-funded research should go into the public domain. Then government doesn't have exclusivity, and neither do the cronies that work with government.
If only there were a better way to separate the preliminary work from the later work, and allow everyone access to the government findings while letting investors make money from what they invest in the later work.
If only there were a better way to separate the preliminary work from the later work, and allow everyone access to the government findings while letting investors make money from what they invest in the later work.
There is a very simple way, and I described it: if you take government funding for a research project, all the results of that project ought to be in the public domain.
If, at the end of that project, you start a new, privately financed project that uses those public domain results, you own whatever results you develop from your private research project.
Of course, anybody else can use the public domain results of the (partially) government financed project as well.
Very simple.
What I object to is the government financing research projects, patenting the results, and the exclusively licensing them to their cronies. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.
How would the original developers who have to recoup whatever their share of development costs ever be able to succeed in a market with competitors who get to use the results for free?
Once a few of the previous generation of co-developers are run out of business by having their prices undercut by competition that's been given free use of their work product, is anyone likely to accept any kind of government funding for pharma research going forward? Without research grants in the funding mix, either the price of new meds will go up, or the pace of development will slow, or possibly both; at that point, is the public generally better off or worse off?
Besides that, what's the criteria being used by the political operatives running the involved agencies (probably more politicized than normal if the pandemic era behavior of DHHS and CDC are any indication) in deciding which drugs are or are not "too expensive"?
'The Biden administration may take redistribution to new extremes if a policy revision floated in December comes to fruition.'
It must be a month ending with r. Or y, h, l, e, or t.
What's funny is you think the 'feds' don't already set pharma pricing thanks to ever-growing UN-Constitutional [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] like Obumercare, FDA, CDC, HHS, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
There's a reason everything health is so stupid expensive an it starts and ends at the end of a Gov-Gun oppressively pushed by criminal minds believing their Gov-Guns can make sh*t.
There’s a reason everything health is so stupid expensive
More than one reason, and government involvement is not the predominant factor. Try:
1. Inelasticity of demand
2. Risk of suit
3. (Outcropping of #2) Cost of end of life care.
While you list items that are predominantly a factor by government involvement. Tell me; does it hurt your head to be so contradictory all the time?
Nobody here yet claiming 'both sides!'? Send in the TDS-addled assholes starting with brandyshit to tell us how Biden really isn't any different from Trump.
All you who 'strategically' or 'reluctantly' voted for the slobbering -fool-in-chief? You OWN this and should get fucked with a running rusty chainsaw.
Let's leave ENB-land for a moment.
"McCaskill: Media Must Stop Fact Checking Joe Biden"
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/24/mccaskill-media-must-stop-fact-checking-joe-biden/
The media must fall in line and serve as a propaganda organ of the state.
"The establishment media must stay in line and continue as a propaganda organ of the state."
Fixed that for you.
Propaganda is always acceptable when it's (D)ifferent.
"WE'RE SAVING DEMOCRACY!"
Yeah, the goal isn't reporting the truth any more, it's avoiding "helping Trump."
Another partisan cunt, in favor of a preschool style nanny state, but ultimately ruled with an iron fist.
A new study in 2020 estimated that the median cost of getting a new drug into the market was $985 million, and the average cost was $1.3 billion, which was much lower compared to previous studies, which have placed the average cost of drug development as $2.8 billion. . . . From . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20in%202020,drug%20development%20as%20%242.8%20billion.
Also.... the pharmaceutical company can move forward with a New Drug Application from the FDA. In 2014, the FDA charged between $1 million to $2 million for an NDA.
FDA assholes get OUT of our way!!! Does my body belong to me, or not? WHY did I have to wait about 3/4th of a year (or more, maybe 1 year?) to be ALLOWED to get COVID vaccines that were already developed WAAAAY earlier?!?!
lets nonprofits and small businesses retain ownership of inventions made possible by federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements—so long as they patent and license these inventions. Its impetus was all the innovation languishing under government ownership.
The government approach that works is the penicillin/fermentation approach. THAT is what created the entire pharmaceutical industry.
Penicillin itself was deliberately not patented – by choice of the Brits. That entire approach in chemistry of patenting the discovery rather than the invention is flawed anyway. The older German approach is better – patent the INVENTION – the PROCESS of synthesizing – not the chemical/discovery. That is also what created German industrialization, leadership in chemistry – and via our theft of all German chemistry during WW1, the entire Anglo chemical industry.
The US govt used the initial penicillin stocks and invented the fermentation process that worked for mass production. That was opened up to all manufacturers. The US govt was not trying to make profits on the patent. It was offering the patent in order to reduce the costs and increase the certainty of mass production. Within ten years, virtually the entire first generation of antibiotics was invented and produced using that fermentation. The profits from antibiotics is what built pharma.
Uh Oh. Reason fav dreamy politician is a...wait for it... MAGA fan!
https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/24/donald-trump-javier-milei-argentina-president-meeting-conservative-political-action-conference-washington-district-columbia/
‘MAGA!’: Trump And Milei Greet Each Other Like Old Friends Backstage At CPAC
After shaking hands the two embraced each other in a hug, with Milei firmly patting Trump’s back before he could be heard joyfully declaring it was an “honor” for him to meet the former president. As “Y.M.C.A” by Village People played in the background for the crowd of conference attendees, the two could be heard exchanging compliments of each other’s work.
“I’m very happy. You are very generous to me. Thank you very much, it’s a very big pleasure [to meet you],” Milei stated.
“You are doing a great job. I’m very proud of you. MAGA! Make Argentina great again,” Trump stated as he look at Milei.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1761498186324103368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1761498186324103368%7Ctwgr%5E7d83c1f6094b7bf710752ed2c82c393f82e5fd32%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frevolver.news%2Fnewsfeed%2F
It would be nice if Milei became a positive influence on Trump in terms of policy.
Milei should keep in mind that he's an un-American illegal sub-humanoid in Trump's eyes! And that he should wait 30 or 70 years after applying for a "green card", if he ever applies for one, to hear back!
You really do say the stupidest shit. Milei didn't sneak in illegally with his culturally enriching food truck.
We should give "Magic Papers" to all of the illegal sub-humanoids, and THAT would SOLVE the problems PERFECTLY, Oh Perfect One! Dross transformed to GOLD; the Philosopher's Stone at long last!!!
WHY do I have to come up with all of the GREAT ideas? WHEN is Perfect One going to cum up with some GREAT ideas, for once?!!?
You don't need "magic" not to violate laws, Shillsy.
If'n ye are NOT Perfect ass-kissers of the SLAVERS of Government Almighty, you sure ass Hell DOOOOO need "Magic" to escape their wrath!!!
All they do,all damned day long, is pass laws against, and rally the internet trolls and the Proud Boys for some street fights against being illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, witches, or, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? ANY methods are OK, so long as they are used against the CORRECT enemies, am I right?
I hope so. Trump's really in many ways an empty vessel. He's got good instincts, but can be lead astray by weasels like Fauci on occasion.
Yep.
I always said that the Democrats could have had virtually anything they wanted by simply working with him. Trump would have given up a lot easily early in his first term.
They fucked him over though. Now, I think he is going to be a hard wall with no chance of their wants being considered for a second.
I wish more conservatives did that. I wonder how much of Clarence Thomas not going Left as so many SCOTUS justices tend to do is because of how horrid the Dems were during his confirmation.
Doubtful. Trump has a fondness for dictators who get things done, not libertarians who get things undone.
Oh, when did he say that? And before you give us DNC narrative, go have a look at the transcripts to see what was actually said.
Is there an online translator I could use to feed in what Trump says and it will say what he really means?
How about reading what he actually said in plain English and not some insane demagogic paraphrasing spoonfed to you by CNN taking heads.
Why would someone who is purposefully ignorant do that?
Thinking is hard!
You're comparing CNN to you and Jesse?
Awe. Pour sarc.
Ahh, I see... You're not actually gullible. You deliberately repeat what you know to be fraudulent paraphrasing, because you like the lies and want to advance them.
You're kind of disgusting, Sarcasmic.
Here are the lies that Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer likes to advance:
https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?
The above is mostly strictly factual, with very little editorializing. When I post it, the FACTS never get refuted… I only get called names. But what do you expect from morally, ethically, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt Trumpturds?
Totalitarians want to turn the GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).
Pour sarc.
From "settled science" and "misinformation" to a new "evolving consensus": Finnish study debunks link between gender (dis)-affirming care and suicide rate:
https://nypost.com/2024/02/24/opinion/a-finnish-study-is-changing-how-we-approach-trans-kids/
A major new study out of Finland found that providing cross-sex hormones and gender-transition surgeries to adolescents and young adults didn’t appear to have any significant effect on suicide deaths. What’s more, gender distress severe enough to send young people to a gender clinic wasn’t independently linked to a higher suicide death rate either.
I'm blocking on the word that describes people who post them same unrelated narrative on multiple threads that have nothing whatever to do with the topic of those threads ...
Is it “weekend”?
I thought diversity is good.
"The purpose of our act was to spur the interaction between public and private research so that patients would receive the benefits of innovative science sooner"
The government should not be doing or funding "research" in the first place. If a private research firm doesn't commercialize its inventions, so what? Why should the taxpayers fund research through the government? If you want to invest in research with your own money go right ahead! If you make a profit from your investment, great! That's win-win for you and the public consumers. While there might be a limited role for government research - military defense technology and public health threats, for example - generally when the government gets involved in public welfare it distorts the normal system at least and does permanent damage at the worst.
The government should not be doing or funding “research” in the first place.
It shouldn't, but it does. Most of academic and non-profit research is financed by the government. Some commercial research is too. The government then patents those inventions and licenses them out to its cronies, while government and non-profit researchers receive kickbacks. The question is what we can do about it.
And a fairly simple solution is to say that all government research grants, regardless of recipient, come under the condition that all research from the project must be put into the public domain. That ought to be true whether the work is done in government labs, at universities, in non-profits, or at corporations. People who can live with those conditions can take the government grants, people who can't need to seek funding elsewhere.
The government should not be doing or funding “research” in the first place.
That is the starting point when you have no evidence about what happens when the government does do or fund research.
Given that it does do both, does the evidence show whether the overall outcome is positive or negative?
Go back to England.
Given that it does do both, does the evidence show whether the overall outcome is positive or negative?
The government taking the money of individuals and redistributing it to corporations and non-profits necessarily has an overall negative outcome.
“If enacted, it would effectively give the government control over the price of drugs.”
I don’t see how. Starting from the dumb idea that government should fund basic scientific research and then license the production and marketing to a private contractor, if the contractor can’t make a profit selling it at a “reasonable” price, there’s no reason to think that anyone else could either. If the government can’t find anyone to sell the product at a particular price, then no one will make that product and the public won’t benefit from the invention. And if the government “licensed” the development to a private company and that company invested millions of dollars in developing it, what happens to their investment if their license is canceled? Isn’t that like changing the wording of a contract unilaterally without compensation? Sounds like endless litigation to me! And what happens if the basic research doesn't turn into a safe and effective product after the private company invests resources in trying to develop it? Who pays for that loss?
Unless, as is more than likely, the socialists/fascists start with the conclusion that they should at least control prices, and then invent law and logic to justify grabbing more private property.
60 Minutes goes to Sweden to make a heart warming special about diversity, but see a different situation, then this happens.
Watching the 60 minutes crew get attacked by a crowd of the same cultural enrichers they were praising mere moments before, warmed my heart.
Thanks, that made my day. But I doubt any of the DEI elite learned anything (or even saw anything).
It’s funny that the wheelchair guy broke it up.
First they came for the Swedes and...
Here's a link to the full vid. To be fair looks like 60 minutes was pretty neutral.
https://twitter.com/UltraDane/status/1761527239139865062
Listening to that posh, overly polite accent being all, "No, it's okay, there's no need to be violent. Please, we're all friends, right?" It's hilarious.
These people don't want to get along with you. They don't give a shit about you.
They are (or at least think they are) like some superior alien race that wants to manipulate and occasionally encounter a savage subservient species.
They do care about us, but only as it tickles their urges.
They care about us like a rancher cares about his cattle.
Blinken, US Secretary of State, PERSONALLY came to Buenos Aires to offer Milei a deal: To support Argentina economically and strategically in exchange for Milei not playing with Trump in this election year in the USA...
This would be election interference with US tax dollars….exactly what Biden originally did with Ukraine.
For those who don't like video: https://elpais.com/argentina/2024-02-23/blinken-tras-su-visita-a-milei-argentina-puede-contar-con-nosotros-mientras-estabiliza-su-economia.html?outputType=amp
Well based on the video of Trump and Milei at CPAC it looks like no sale. This is the kind of issue that Reason should be covering. They've called Milei the first libertarian president and here we have the Biden regime trying to buy him off because he admires Trump. You can't have it both ways. I predict that TDS will prevent the Reason "libertarians" from reporting this. Fuck Joe Biden and Make Argentina Great Again.
Don't you guys get it? Like anti-racism, this is anti-foreign government collusion with American elections. And OK, because reasons.
"You don't understand. We have to destroy democracy to save it."
Poor Jeff.
‘Slightly racist to be a Taylor Swift fan,’ professor says
Whew. Dodged that bullet. I barely know who Taylor Swift is. Proof positive that I'm not racist. Do I get a membership card for the not racist club?
This makes me want to become a Taylor Swift fan purely to spite this person. She deserves it.
Get A Load Of These Insane Christian Nationalists Who Believed Rights Come From God And Not The Government
"And endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" This kind of crazy conspiracy theory misinformation needs some serious censoring.
Buttplug ranted about it on Friday, and of course Sarcasmic fell for it.
Same reason why even though there are photos, video and even cell phone data for the guy who left the J6 pipe bombs, there's been no name or arrest.
Same reason why even though there are photos and video of the middle aged guy breaking windows at the Capitol on J6, there's been no name or arrest.
Why Don't We Know Who Built the January 6 Gallows?
Among the most widely distributed images from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill is the photo of a gallows that supposedly was built for the purpose of hanging Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other congressional leaders.
That image and an accompanying audio track of rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence" were repeatedly featured by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, the mainstream media, and President Joe Biden.
But why don't we know who built the gallows? Why did the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) allow the gallows to remain on the Capitol grounds even though they had multiple hours to remove it before the riot began?
Why is it that three years after the riot, the FBI has no suspects for who built the gallows even though there is a video beginning at 6:30 a.m. on January 6 of the structure being built?
Those are just some of the questions that demand answers, especially now that Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Committee's oversight committee, has released the results of its investigation.
“It is inconceivable that a gallows could be constructed on U.S. Capitol property and left up all day,” Loudermilk said in a statement. “These men arrived early in the morning, several hours before the rally even started or anyone had gathered, to construct the gallows platform, yet this structure was allowed to stay intact for all to see.
"These actions raise more serious and troubling questions. Why didn’t the U.S. Capitol Police take down the gallows once it was seen on Capitol property, and why have the individuals never been identified?"
Here are the basic facts about the gallows, as described by the subcommittee's report:
"At approximately 6:30 a.m. on January 6, 2021, a white full-size van parked north of Constitution Avenue, where three passengers unloaded a large bundle of lumber with wheels. After unloading, the group walked the bundle across Constitution Avenue and onto the grass at Union Square. They were then joined by two more people arriving by cab at the corner of 1st and C Streets NW.
Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., the group constructed the platform and two main pillars of the gallows, only leaving off the crossbeam. During this time, the apparent group leader along with one other person, left the group and walked down 3rd Street, heading north. They returned a few minutes later with coffee, and the entire group left the scene. Despite the leader’s distinctive clothing—he was wearing a long trench coat, long white scarf, fedora-type hat, and walking with a cane—he has never been identified publicly.
At approximately 1:00 p.m., the group of five returned to the scene and the presumed leader, now wearing a baseball cap, installed the final crossbeam and added the noose made of bright orange rope. Shortly after construction was complete, all five men left the grounds."
According to Loudermilk, the Select Committee on January 6 never reviewed the thousands of hours of videos of the riot specifically to determine who was responsible for the gallows, even though the panel did everything it could to publicize the structure with the hanging noose.
The plot thickens.
We now know that:
- Pelosi refused Trump's offer to call in the National Guard
- Pelosi refused requests for the National Guard six times on J6 by the Capitol Police Chief.
- The FBI and DHS had agents present in the crowd. The FBI intimated over 200.
- The man caught on video placing pipe bombs has not been arrested.
- They refused to arrest the only man caught on camera urging the crowd to attack the Capitol. He was praised by the J6 Committee and later got a slap on the wrist.
- The man caught on video breaking Capitol windows has not been arrested.
- The group who dropped off the 'gallows' at the Capitol which has provided the "Hang Mike Pence" narrative, was caught on video and in photos, but never questioned or even investigated.
- The two police officers who testified under oath that they were horribly injured in the J6 riots are on Capitol Hill CCTV recordings walking around unhurt many hours after the rioting ended.
There was an "insurrection" on J6 all right but not by the people they're blaming.
So now Reason implicitly endorses IP and patents by treating patents as property rights. Wrong. The state taking back a monopoly privilege grant it never should have made is not a taking or a "grab." This reminds me of the Cato statists who want to restrict free trade and drug reimportation to prop up monopoly patent pharma pricing in the US.
https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/12/drug-reimportation/
https://c4sif.org/2011/07/price-controls-antitrust-and-patents/
A patent gives protection for intellectual property over an innovation for a limited time in exchange for being transparent about how the innovation works. The alternative is to have closely guarded industrial secrets.
You do not seem to understand the societal purpose of patents for scientific and technological development.
Recall the Bush years 2001-09 and the surveillance state, permanent war, religious/Christian crusades and hero-worship disguised as "compassionate conservatism".
"I Wanted to Present Some of the Fascists as Ordinary People": Alan Moore's V For Vendetta Perfectly Depicts The Banality Of Evil
.
The author noted that V for Vendetta's portrayal of an oppressive ring-wing state would have had less value, less impact, had he taken a reductive approach to writing the story's fascist characters. The central antagonist of V is the state, not its citizens – or even necessarily the people that perpetuate it.
https://screenrant.com/alan-moore-wanted-relatable-v-for-vendettas-villains/
The 38% approval mediocrity you defend every day was a US Senator at the time. (And didn't have dementia yet.)
How did he use that position to combat the excesses of the Bush Administration?
Did he do everything he could to stop the Iraq War? He must have at least voted against the resolution, right?
Did he oppose the Patriot Act?
What became of the most prominent cheerleaders for the Iraq War and the bad intel that justified it: Bill Kristol, David "Axis of Evil" Frum, Jeffrey "Iraq / Al Qaeda Connection" Goldberg? Which party do they support now?
Joe is too old. He should drop out today.
All in on Newsom, huh?
Recall the Bush years 2001-09 and the surveillance state, permanent war, religious/Christian crusades and hero-worship disguised as “compassionate conservatism”.
Aren't Biden, Romney, McCain, Ryan, the Cheney's and the rest of the permanent war crowd your heroes now?
Didn't you cheer for Obama who spied on journalists and unleashed the surveillance state? Didn't you cheer the Public-Private partnership on government social media censorship, Five Eyes and the Google spying?
It seems like the only guy you're trolling here is you.
Trump's demographic problem
If America were dominated by old, white, election-denying Christians who didn't go to college, former President Trump would win the general election in as big of a landslide as his sweep of the first four GOP contests.
.
Reality check: That group isn't remotely big enough to win a presidential election. He would need to attract voters who are more diverse, more educated and believe his first loss was legit. South Carolina exit polls show he didn't do that.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/25/trump-voter-demographics-problem-election-2024
Demographic analysis, huh?
Why has the Jewish "Israel First" chickenhawk demographic soured on the GOP?
How did Republicans lose ...... or perhaps more accurately, how did your party win over these foreign policy geniuses?
The few hundred old Neocons left are not too fond of the pro-Soviet MAGA crowd, Sandy.
The reality TV buffoon had not taken over the GOP by 2014.
Yet it was in mid-2014 that NYT asked Are neocons getting ready to ally with Hillary Clinton?
Here's what I think happened. 🙂
Neocons realized "anti-war" Democrats like you are totally full of shit. They realized what you objected to was never the Patriot Act or "bombing brown people" or "wars for Israel." Your objection was simply that a President from the wrong party greenlit those things.
Thus the rational move for neocons was to promote their foreign policy through the Democratic Party. This worked out great for people like Bill Kristol. He became a liberal in good standing - without renouncing the one part of his record that liberals pretended to find most offensive!
The neocon agenda was always at home in the Democratic party, a party that believes that the US should intervene in everybody's lives, a party that tries to impose one way of living on the entire world.
For a few decades, neocons were unwelcome in the Democratic party, so they invaded the Republican party Fortunately, they are now leaving again. Good riddance.
"old, white, election-denying Christians who didn’t go to college"
See, it's snotty, misplaced superiority complexes like this that give Trump his power, and part of the reason why Democratic Party support is cratering with Blacks and Hispanics.
There’s No Question This Is Dead’: Biden Impeachment Inquiry Falls Apart
https://time.com/6767653/biden-impeachment-fbi-informant-russia/
Bring on the next Fake Scandal please! This one was fun while it lasted.
The bank records, the 200 bank issued Suspicious Activity reports, Wire transfers from China listing Joe Bidens home address, the Privat bank transactions, the LLCs, the texts, the emails, the WhatsApp messages, the photos of Joe with Hunter’s business partners he said he didn’t meet, the voicemails to his son, the two business partners advertising Joe as “The Brand”, the “big guy” and “the chairman”, the two whistleblowers testimonies, the recorded phone calls between Biden and Poroshenko, the video of Joe bragging about the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, email showing Joe’s VP office helping Hunter directly, and Hunter’s statements about having to give his father half his income...
...but Buttplug figures Democrats lying about a witness will stop the nightmare
Former U.S. spies warned in 2020 that the Hunter Biden scandal had Russian fingerprints. They feel vindicated now.
The Justice Department said this week that informant Alexander Smirnov invented a story about $5 million bribes paid to Joe and Hunter Biden and is also "peddling new lies."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/former-us-spies-warned-2020-hunter-biden-scandal-russian-fingerprints-rcna140240
No shit.
Twitter did the right thing. Don't peddle Russian disinformation. That is the job for Fox News.
"The Justice Department said this week that informant Alexander Smirnov invented a story about $5 million bribes paid to Joe and Hunter Biden and is also "peddling new lies."
JOE BIDEN'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THAT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN ARE LiEs!!?
Imagine that.
And their evidence?
Nothing?
Imagine that.
Meanwhile, from the article Buttplug never actually read:
"No public evidence has emerged pointing to a Russian government role in how the laptop materials were made public. But the former officials say the materials fueled stories consistent with Russian efforts to accuse Biden of corruption that persist to this day — and that therefore they were justified in sounding the alarm."
"TRUST US BRO, HAVE WE EVER LIED BEFORE?"
Tim Scott’s Vice Presidential Debasement Is Almost Complete
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/donald-trump-vice-president-shortlist-tim-scott-laura-ingraham-vance-stefanik.html
Debasement? Are you for real? This smacks of racism.
Tim Scott's twerking and jiving is just him feeling that ole-timey religion.
Lol, a Slate article.
Anyway, it's a fine time to remind folks that Plug is incredibly racist when a black man like Tim Scott runs away from the DNC vote plantation.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 3 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Uncle Clarence has had his hand out for over 20 years.
GIMME DAT WHITIE MONEY!
That fucking cop lover.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 19 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Sandy, I had a genuine fear that a Senator Walker would be shucking and jiving us good liberty-loving Georgians every day.
https://reason.com/2023/10/10/complete-siege/?comments=true#comment-10268807
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Tim Scott 400-1 Whuffo Bro? Whuffo is you in dis race fo, bro?
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Dude, I am from the South. You can’t troll me on race.
Do you remember Spermin’ Herman Cain? He sounded like a slave extra from Song of the South.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
No, you’re a fucking snowflake who only gets offended when one of your Lawn Jockeys is criticized.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 28 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Groveling like a shoe-shine boy, Tim Scott humiliates himself for Fatass Donnie.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
SE Cupp is a conservative commentator who is ashamed of Tim Scott’s groveling ‘Happy slave” act concerning Donnie. It is truly shameful.
Alright, I will see you Peanuts tomorrow. I'm out for the day.
Klan meeting or a kid to steal?
I posted a link to an amicus brief the other day in the presidential immunity case submitted by Trump to SCOTUS. Looks like Trump is making that argument in the FL case and challenging the entire prosecution on related grounds also. The short version is that Jack "8-0" Smith was not legally appointed and that the millions in funding he has received are not authorized by statute or the constitution.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-seeks-dismissal-mar-lago-case-says-jack-smith-lacks-authority
Link to amicus brief.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1760721784339615947.html
Is that an effective argument? I'm a little ignorant when it comes to appointing special counsels.
About time this country clamped down on the outrageous prices Big Pharma charges purely to American citizens. I say make the companies charge the same prices to us as they do to Canada, Germany and UK. Otherwise, let Fed come-a-callin'.
Washington Post is over there ====>
Do we want to ever get new drugs?
Then we should ignore your ideas. Completely.
Want to lower drug prices? Make the copyright protection on drugs the same as it is on works of art. Same length of time and everything.
Life of the youngest member of the project plus 70 years would make massive costs for new drugs less necessary since they have far more time to recoup losses than 7 years does.
Should at least be tried. If the prices do not come down, then revert ALL IP protections on everything to be just 7 years. Long copyright has not made creative works better, so do away with that idiocy.
Generally speaking, this issue plays a central role in our society, so I understand what you mean. I can't concentrate either. That was a real problem for me. Therefore, in this case, I want to mention that one day I started using a healthy product that helped me feel better. You can check out Essiac Tea history and then choose the most suitable product to improve your well-being. You can also try to use this promo code 5offnow to get a discount.