Coronavirus Thread VI: Are We Nearly There Yet? (READ OP)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I get my first dose of the Moderna vaccine next Monday. Woot!

[Ifreann]

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/B1ItnyySd

Study shows no vaccine-resistant mutation exists in Israel

Yet.

[Juristonia]

Looks like Florida's been less than honest about their numbers, again.
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-covid-numbers-face-new-scrutiny-090058319.html

[Rusozak]

I got my second dose of the Moderna vaccine yesterday, and now I feel like I've been hit by a bus. I don't know if that's good or bad, but at least I know it did something.

If you still feel it 24 hours from now reach out to your medic. A lot of my friends who have had the shot reported the same

Yeah, that was my plan. I'm hesitant to medicate for the symptoms though. I don't want to impede the vaccine from doing its job.

[CoraSpia]

If you still feel it 24 hours from now reach out to your medic. A lot of my friends who have had the shot reported the same

Yeah, that was my plan. I'm hesitant to medicate for the symptoms though. I don't want to impede the vaccine from doing its job.

Is there no medical advice concerning what can and cannot have an impact on that? I know there was a lot that came up when I was wondering whether I could drink the day of my vaccine.

[CoraSpia]

Stanford scientists reverse-engineered the Moderna vaccine and posted the mRNA sequence on Github

[...]

The full GitHub post can be found here

Awesome. Should make for an increase in the supply of vaccines, especially in poorer countries.

IP lawyers are going to be licking their lips.

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, that was my plan. I'm hesitant to medicate for the symptoms though. I don't want to impede the vaccine from doing its job.

Is there no medical advice concerning what can and cannot have an impact on that? I know there was a lot that came up when I was wondering whether I could drink the day of my vaccine.

I did. Didn't seem to have any extra effect

[Ifreann]

Awesome. Should make for an increase in the supply of vaccines, especially in poorer countries.

IP lawyers are going to be licking their lips.

Don't see why, doesn't seem like there's anything they could do about it.

[CoraSpia]

IP lawyers are going to be licking their lips.

Don't see why, doesn't seem like there's anything they could do about it.

If someone makes more vaccines using it without Moderna's permission however, things definitely can be done about it.

[Esthe]

If you did that then someone would fake sickness to get out of work.

...since when did "work from home" mean "getting out of work?"

Well, it depends if the company is monitoring to make sure or not.

[Ifreann]

Don't see why, doesn't seem like there's anything they could do about it.

If someone makes more vaccines using it without Moderna's permission however, things definitely can be done about it.

Can they? I would think that if some other pharmaceutical lab uses publicly available information to develop their own vaccine then Moderna wouldn't have any claim to the results of their work.

[Ethel mermania]

If someone makes more vaccines using it without Moderna's permission however, things definitely can be done about it.

Can they? I would think that if some other pharmaceutical lab uses publicly available information to develop their own vaccine then Moderna wouldn't have any claim to the results of their work.

Patents by definition are made public. To the question Depends, if the process in creating the vaccine is different probably not, If its similar probably. That however would be best asked of an IP lawyer, and even that may take a while to decide in court.

[CoraSpia]

If someone makes more vaccines using it without Moderna's permission however, things definitely can be done about it.

Can they? I would think that if some other pharmaceutical lab uses publicly available information to develop their own vaccine then Moderna wouldn't have any claim to the results of their work.

Have you ever read a patent? They're publically available and extremely descriptive. Someone skilled in manufacturing the product in question would be able to manufacture it quite easily, just from reading the patent filing. It matters very little that the information released by these scientists is publically available, because all patents are publically available. The patent does however give moderna the exclusive right to manufacture the thing that is protected by it.

[CoraSpia]

Can they? I would think that if some other pharmaceutical lab uses publicly available information to develop their own vaccine then Moderna wouldn't have any claim to the results of their work.

Patents by definition are made public. To the question Depends, if the process in creating the vaccine is different probably not, If its similar probably. That however would be best asked of an IP lawyer, and even that may take a while to decide in court.

I've just messaged one now, not sure if he'll reply though.

[Ifreann]

Can they? I would think that if some other pharmaceutical lab uses publicly available information to develop their own vaccine then Moderna wouldn't have any claim to the results of their work.

Have you ever read a patent? They're publically available and extremely descriptive. Someone skilled in manufacturing the product in question would be able to manufacture it quite easily, just from reading the patent filing. It matters very little that the information released by these scientists is publically available, because all patents are publically available. The patent does however give moderna the exclusive right to manufacture the thing that is protected by it.

This isn't a patent filing, this is research by Stanford University.

[CoraSpia]

Have you ever read a patent? They're publically available and extremely descriptive. Someone skilled in manufacturing the product in question would be able to manufacture it quite easily, just from reading the patent filing. It matters very little that the information released by these scientists is publically available, because all patents are publically available. The patent does however give moderna the exclusive right to manufacture the thing that is protected by it.

This isn't a patent filing, this is research by Stanford University.

Do Moderna not have a patent on the drug?

[San Lumen]

Had a positive test result today. I feel fine with no symptoms at all and haven't experienced any the whole time my sister has been sick. Its been a week since she showed symptoms.

[Ifreann]

This isn't a patent filing, this is research by Stanford University.

Do Moderna not have a patent on the drug?

You'd have to ask Moderna, my point is that using this research to inform vaccine development is not really the same as copying the details of a patent filing, in that this research isn't a patent filing.

[CoraSpia]

Do Moderna not have a patent on the drug?

You'd have to ask Moderna, my point is that using this research to inform vaccine development is not really the same as copying the details of a patent filing, in that this research isn't a patent filing.

If I took out a patent to protect, say, a unique form of computer chip I'd developed, and somebody managed to reverse engineer said chip and post step-by-step instructions on the internet, it does not give other people the right to take said instructions and create the protected computer chip. The fact that step-by-step instructions on creating a patented product exist does not undermine the fact that a patent exists and breaching that patent is a violation of intellectual property law.

This is why Samsung and apple have been in dispute for a very long time over the fundamental design of Samsung smartphones. If you're Samsung, how apple makes their smartphones is fucking obvious. However, due to a patent for an 'electronic device' that they filed some time ago, without paying apple for the use of their invention (i.e. the external design of the smartphone rather than the idea of a smartphone itself) Samsung are in violation of apple's electronic device patent.

[Ethel mermania]

Have you ever read a patent? They're publically available and extremely descriptive. Someone skilled in manufacturing the product in question would be able to manufacture it quite easily, just from reading the patent filing. It matters very little that the information released by these scientists is publically available, because all patents are publically available. The patent does however give moderna the exclusive right to manufacture the thing that is protected by it.

This isn't a patent filing, this is research by Stanford University.

That doesn't matter, if its patented. And that is an interesting question if not.

[Vassenor]

You'd have to ask Moderna, my point is that using this research to inform vaccine development is not really the same as copying the details of a patent filing, in that this research isn't a patent filing.

If I took out a patent to protect, say, a unique form of computer chip I'd developed, and somebody managed to reverse engineer said chip and post step-by-step instructions on the internet, it does not give other people the right to take said instructions and create the protected computer chip. The fact that step-by-step instructions on creating a patented product exist does not undermine the fact that a patent exists and breaching that patent is a violation of intellectual property law.

This is why Samsung and apple have been in dispute for a very long time over the fundamental design of Samsung smartphones. If you're Samsung, how apple makes their smartphones is fucking obvious. However, due to a patent for an 'electronic device' that they filed some time ago, without paying apple for the use of their invention (i.e. the external design of the smartphone rather than the idea of a smartphone itself) Samsung are in violation of apple's electronic device patent.

All because Apple decided they invented the square, the rectangle and the rounded corner.

[CoraSpia]

If I took out a patent to protect, say, a unique form of computer chip I'd developed, and somebody managed to reverse engineer said chip and post step-by-step instructions on the internet, it does not give other people the right to take said instructions and create the protected computer chip. The fact that step-by-step instructions on creating a patented product exist does not undermine the fact that a patent exists and breaching that patent is a violation of intellectual property law.

This is why Samsung and apple have been in dispute for a very long time over the fundamental design of Samsung smartphones. If you're Samsung, how apple makes their smartphones is fucking obvious. However, due to a patent for an 'electronic device' that they filed some time ago, without paying apple for the use of their invention (i.e. the external design of the smartphone rather than the idea of a smartphone itself) Samsung are in violation of apple's electronic device patent.

All because Apple decided they invented the square, the rectangle and the rounded corner.

If nobody has patented it before you, and you can persuade your jurisdictions patent office that it is an authentic and unique design, you get the patent. Individual patents might seem stupid but the clever people at the patent office obviously disagreed.

[Vassenor]

All because Apple decided they invented the square, the rectangle and the rounded corner.

If nobody has patented it before you, and you can persuade your jurisdictions patent office that it is an authentic and unique design, you get the patent. Individual patents might seem stupid but the clever people at the patent office obviously disagreed.

Because it's not like there's a mountain of prior art for all three things.

[CoraSpia]

If nobody has patented it before you, and you can persuade your jurisdictions patent office that it is an authentic and unique design, you get the patent. Individual patents might seem stupid but the clever people at the patent office obviously disagreed.

Because it's not like there's a mountain of prior art for all three things.

I would suggest asking the patent office for their reasoning.

[MC United]

Because it's not like there's a mountain of prior art for all three things.

I would suggest asking the patent office for their reasoning.

The way to do that is to review the file history of the patent. For issued US patents, go to the USPTO's Public PAIR site and enter the number of the patent of interest: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

Clearly in the present case, there wasn't "a mountain of prior art" that rendered the topic invention unpatentable, nor has such a mountain been cited to date that would invalidate the issued patent.

Of course, if anyone (like Vassenor) should possess or know where to find such a mountain, anyone seeking to invalidate the patent would love to see it. The burden would be on the challenger to show that such prior art constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" of invalidity, however, since patents are presumed to be validly issued (certainly as far as US patents go).

It's not enough to point to prior art in the same field as the invention. It has to establish that at least one of the claims of the patent is not novel or not unobvious (I'm presuming all the claims meet the utility requirement). Which means either that every limitation of the claim is anticipated by a single piece of prior art, or that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the teachings of one or more prior art references to arrive at the invention defined by the claim.

In my experience, obviousness has been the more frequent basis for either denying a patent claim, or attempting to invalidate an issued patent. (Note: almost all of my experience with the USPTO was prior to the recent revision of the patent statute, which IMO is a textbook case of politicians mucking up something they have no understanding of.)