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

[Xmara]

Epidemiologists warn that mutations could make the current covid vaccines ineffective within a year

[Xmara]

CDC director warns of ‘impending doom’ as US cases trend upward

[Ethel mermania]

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.)

I know a lot of people who would agree with you

My last post in this tangent is the website techdirt does a nice job covering the issues with the patent office.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... onal.shtml

[Vassenor]

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.)

So apparently we're just supposed to ignore all the examples of squares, rectangles and rounded corners in the world because Apple invented all three.

[MC United]

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.

A patented invention is defined by one or more claims. Each claim comprises a certain number of limitations. If another lab produces a vaccine that meets every limitation of at least one claim of a validly issued patent, literally or equivalently (to the extent that the doctrine of equivalents still has any life left in it), then that vaccine would infringe the claim. The claim could be to, e.g., the vaccine itself, or to a process for producing the vaccine. If, on the other hand, the accused vaccine does not meet every limitation of a claim, then it would not infringe the claim. Much of patent litigation involves showing whether or not an accused infringer actually meets all limitations of an asserted claim.

If prior art exists that would anticipate or render obvious the claim, then an alleged infringer can cite that as grounds for invalidating the patent. It would have to be prior art, however. By definition, it would have to have been known before the application that led to the issued patent was filed.

There may be other ways to attack the validity of the issued patent as well, but prior art attacks are the most common. Such challenges aren't easy, however. Patents are presumed valid, and require clear and convincing evidence of invalidity to be invalidated.

[-SARS-]

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.

If you take fever reducing medicines, those can screw with your immune system, but I think that's more of an issue when you're trying to clear a live virus and would not impact the long-term effects of vaccination.

I am not a doctor, though. Talking SARS viruses are not a reliable source of medical advice.

[Kowani]

25 world leaders, WHO, call for international pandemic treaty

The proposed treaty envisions beating future pandemics by promoting the sharing of vaccines, medicines, protective gear and data on new health threats to humans.

It also envisions a more coordinated and global response to health emergencies, including the quick release of detailed information about a new danger. […] But getting such a treaty agreed upon will not be easy.

The United States, China and Russia, among other major powers, did not sign onto the letter. Tedros said the U.S. and China have been consulted about the treaty, and he said there were “positive” signs from the two superpowers.

The World Health Assembly, a body made up of the 194 member states of the WHO, is expected to discuss the proposal at its next meeting at the end of May.

In the short term at least, the proposed treaty likely will only add to the tensions running high between the U.S. and China over how the pandemic started.

This conflict is particularly intense as the world scrutinizes a WHO-led investigation into the virus origins with a new report issued Tuesday on the findings of an expert mission to China.[…] Michel said the proposed treaty would help ensure countries quickly let others understand the threat they face from an emerging disease or health threat.

“At the beginning of the crisis, we didn’t have all at the same time the same understanding about the seriousness of the situation,” Michel said without referring to China. “And that’s why this question of the exchange of data is key to be able to act together, to take decisions together.”

In their letter, the national leaders said the world needs to erect a multilateral system of governance for health emergencies that mirrors the steps world leaders took after World War II to prevent future wars.

“The Covid-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s,” the letter states. “At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.

“We hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the Covid-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies.”

Among the 27 leaders signing the letter were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Korean President Moon Jae-in, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Tunisian President Kais Saied, Indonesian President Joko Widodo and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
They said the new treaty should be rooted in the constitution of the WHO and act as an extension of the International Health Regulations, a set of rules laid out in 2005 about how countries should prevent and control international health threats.

[MC United]

I know a lot of people who would agree with you

My last post in this tangent is the website techdirt does a nice job covering the issues with the patent office.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... onal.shtml

Thanks for that link.

[MC United]

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.)

So apparently we're just supposed to ignore all the examples of squares, rectangles and rounded corners in the world because Apple invented all three.

You're free to ignore whatever you like. What matters, however, is whether the prior art renders a patent claim invalid. Once the patent office (of whatever jurisdiction) determines that the invention is patentable, the burden shifts to challengers to show that the patent office erred, by producing invalidating prior art that meets the appropriate burden of proof.

[North Washington Republic]

Well, I’m getting my shot later this week! ....It’s sad...that I have to resort to celebrating on anonymous online accounts and only telling a few family members because so many of my IRL friends are vehemently anti-VAX....

[Kowani]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he'll ban vaccine passports

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he plans to issue an executive order forbidding businesses from requiring so-called vaccine passports across the state.

DeSantis said at a news conference on Monday that he would introduce "an executive function" designed to prevent businesses from refusing to serve customers who were unable to prove they had been vaccinated, while seeking support from the Republican legislature to enshrine the act into law.

DeSantis was speaking after reports that the Biden administration was coordinating efforts by private companies and federal agencies to develop a plan that will allow people to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to gain access to some businesses, offices, or restaurants.

"We are not supporting doing any vaccine passports in the state of Florida," he said Monday, in a news conference broadcast by news station 10 Tampa Bay. "It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society.

"You want to go to a movie theater. Should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a game, should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a theme park? No. We're not supportive of that."

Vaccine passports could be used to allow people entry to sports bars, restaurants, and music venues, and to travel abroad.

DeSantis made the comments at the Florida State Capitol, where he signed a separate bill into law designed to shield businesses and schools from lawsuits related to the coronavirus pandemic, The Hill reported.

[Kannap]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he'll ban vaccine passports

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he plans to issue an executive order forbidding businesses from requiring so-called vaccine passports across the state.

DeSantis said at a news conference on Monday that he would introduce "an executive function" designed to prevent businesses from refusing to serve customers who were unable to prove they had been vaccinated, while seeking support from the Republican legislature to enshrine the act into law.

DeSantis was speaking after reports that the Biden administration was coordinating efforts by private companies and federal agencies to develop a plan that will allow people to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to gain access to some businesses, offices, or restaurants.

"We are not supporting doing any vaccine passports in the state of Florida," he said Monday, in a news conference broadcast by news station 10 Tampa Bay. "It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society.

"You want to go to a movie theater. Should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a game, should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a theme park? No. We're not supportive of that."

Vaccine passports could be used to allow people entry to sports bars, restaurants, and music venues, and to travel abroad.

DeSantis made the comments at the Florida State Capitol, where he signed a separate bill into law designed to shield businesses and schools from lawsuits related to the coronavirus pandemic, The Hill reported.

Based

[North Washington Republic]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he'll ban vaccine passports

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he plans to issue an executive order forbidding businesses from requiring so-called vaccine passports across the state.

DeSantis said at a news conference on Monday that he would introduce "an executive function" designed to prevent businesses from refusing to serve customers who were unable to prove they had been vaccinated, while seeking support from the Republican legislature to enshrine the act into law.

DeSantis was speaking after reports that the Biden administration was coordinating efforts by private companies and federal agencies to develop a plan that will allow people to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to gain access to some businesses, offices, or restaurants.

"We are not supporting doing any vaccine passports in the state of Florida," he said Monday, in a news conference broadcast by news station 10 Tampa Bay. "It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society.

"You want to go to a movie theater. Should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a game, should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a theme park? No. We're not supportive of that."

Vaccine passports could be used to allow people entry to sports bars, restaurants, and music venues, and to travel abroad.

DeSantis made the comments at the Florida State Capitol, where he signed a separate bill into law designed to shield businesses and schools from lawsuits related to the coronavirus pandemic, The Hill reported.

Based

More like stupidity. Something tells me that DeSantis would support a private business refusing service to LGBT people, but he doesn’t believe that a private business has a right to refuse service to anti-Vaxxers

[Ethel mermania]

More halts for AstraZeneca

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/29/amer ... index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/german- ... r-60s.html

I dont think I would take this shot.

[Rusozak]

Based

More like stupidity. Something tells me that DeSantis would support a private business refusing service to LGBT people, but he doesn’t believe that a private business has a right to refuse service to anti-Vaxxers

I saw anti-vaxxers comparing it to having to wear a Star of David during the Holocaust. Despicable. They want to be persecuted so bad.

[North Washington Republic]

More like stupidity. Something tells me that DeSantis would support a private business refusing service to LGBT people, but he doesn’t believe that a private business has a right to refuse service to anti-Vaxxers

I saw anti-vaxxers comparing it to having to wear a Star of David during the Holocaust. Despicable. They want to be persecuted so bad.

It reminds me of anti-maskers comparing themselves to George Floyd. Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers must have been spoiled rotten as kids.

[Kannap]

Based

More like stupidity. Something tells me that DeSantis would support a private business refusing service to LGBT people, but he doesn’t believe that a private business has a right to refuse service to anti-Vaxxers

It's really just a case of DeSantis doing the right thing for the wrong reasons then. I'm sure that's what he believes and it would make him a hypocrite. But the idea of COVID passports in the United States where things exactly like this get abused by authority and used to marginalize or further discriminate against marginalized groups is always the first thing that comes to mind for me. Sure, it seems like a good idea on paper, but I fear the reality of implementing them will only harm people, and not the anti-vaxxers (though they'd be harmed by it too, but I don't particularly care on that front).

[North Washington Republic]

More like stupidity. Something tells me that DeSantis would support a private business refusing service to LGBT people, but he doesn’t believe that a private business has a right to refuse service to anti-Vaxxers

It's really just a case of DeSantis doing the right thing for the wrong reasons then. I'm sure that's what he believes and it would make him a hypocrite. But the idea of COVID passports in the United States where things exactly like this get abused by authority and used to marginalize or further discriminate against marginalized groups is always the first thing that comes to mind for me. Sure, it seems like a good idea on paper, but I fear the reality of implementing them will only harm people, and not the anti-vaxxers (though they'd be harmed by it too, but I don't particularly care on that front).

Regarding federal agencies, it isn’t up to DeSantis what their policy is. He may want to be President, but he isn’t. As more and more people get vaccinated and vaccines become more available, we are going to see private business run promotions to offer special deals for those that have been vaccinated. I don’t see lots of private business requiring vaccinations for service, but I do see business such as Sam’s Club and Costco requiring them.

This is DenSantis virtue signaling for the Q loons that believe that the vaccines are some sort of conspiracy. Plain and simple.

[Ifreann]

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.

The researchers are very specific in saying, for good reason I would suspect, that they did not reverse engineer anything.

[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.

The researchers are very specific in saying, for good reason I would suspect, that they did not reverse engineer anything.

Presumably the researchers aren't planning on using the vaccine for profit. The issue comes if someone else does and it satisfies the test that MC United was talking about. I trust him on patent law as he's a patent attorney.

[Ifreann]

The researchers are very specific in saying, for good reason I would suspect, that they did not reverse engineer anything.

Presumably the researchers aren't planning on using the vaccine for profit. The issue comes if someone else does and it satisfies the test that MC United was talking about. I trust him on patent law as he's a patent attorney.

Free vaccines, then. Nice.

[CoraSpia]

Presumably the researchers aren't planning on using the vaccine for profit. The issue comes if someone else does and it satisfies the test that MC United was talking about. I trust him on patent law as he's a patent attorney.

Free vaccines, then. Nice.

Likely free defective vaccines if they have to modify the code enough to make it sufficiently different.

[Kowani]

Indiana to drop mask mandate April 6th

Indiana’s statewide mask mandate is being lifted April 6, but in some places in the state, people will continue to be required wear masks.

Indianapolis, the largest city in the state, is keeping its mask mandate for now, and the director of the county health department says they likely won’t end it until 70-80% of people are vaccinated. That could be a while. As of last week, only about 12% of people in the city age 16 and older were vaccinated.

Bloomington, the state’s seventh largest city, is also keeping its mask mandate. The mandate, issued by the county’s health department, has been in effect since July 17, 10 days before the state mask mandate July 27, and is more restrictive.

[...]And unlike the state mandate, which had no punishment for noncompliance, county health departments in Bloomington, Indianapolis and other cities can force the closure of a business for noncompliance.

In announcing last week he was rescinding the mask mandate effective, Gov. Eric Holcomb said he was leaving it up to cities and counties to keep their own mask mandates in place – in contrast to Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, not only never issued a statewide mask mandate, but two weeks ago signed an executive order canceling any fines issued to people and businesses by local governments related to local mask mandates and occupancy restrictions related to COVID-19. Holcomb has gone the other way, and in his prime-time speech March 23 announcing the end to the mask mandate, said masks will continue to be required in K-12 schools and also in state government buildings and said local governments are free to keep their mask mandates.

[CoraSpia]

Indiana to drop mask mandate April 6th

Indiana’s statewide mask mandate is being lifted April 6, but in some places in the state, people will continue to be required wear masks.

Indianapolis, the largest city in the state, is keeping its mask mandate for now, and the director of the county health department says they likely won’t end it until 70-80% of people are vaccinated. That could be a while. As of last week, only about 12% of people in the city age 16 and older were vaccinated.

Bloomington, the state’s seventh largest city, is also keeping its mask mandate. The mandate, issued by the county’s health department, has been in effect since July 17, 10 days before the state mask mandate July 27, and is more restrictive.

[...]And unlike the state mandate, which had no punishment for noncompliance, county health departments in Bloomington, Indianapolis and other cities can force the closure of a business for noncompliance.

In announcing last week he was rescinding the mask mandate effective, Gov. Eric Holcomb said he was leaving it up to cities and counties to keep their own mask mandates in place – in contrast to Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, not only never issued a statewide mask mandate, but two weeks ago signed an executive order canceling any fines issued to people and businesses by local governments related to local mask mandates and occupancy restrictions related to COVID-19. Holcomb has gone the other way, and in his prime-time speech March 23 announcing the end to the mask mandate, said masks will continue to be required in K-12 schools and also in state government buildings and said local governments are free to keep their mask mandates.

Has Indiana fucked up its vaccinations? Surely that's 12 % have received both doses, this isn't germany.

[Kowani]

Indiana to drop mask mandate April 6th

Indiana’s statewide mask mandate is being lifted April 6, but in some places in the state, people will continue to be required wear masks.

Indianapolis, the largest city in the state, is keeping its mask mandate for now, and the director of the county health department says they likely won’t end it until 70-80% of people are vaccinated. That could be a while. As of last week, only about 12% of people in the city age 16 and older were vaccinated.

Bloomington, the state’s seventh largest city, is also keeping its mask mandate. The mandate, issued by the county’s health department, has been in effect since July 17, 10 days before the state mask mandate July 27, and is more restrictive.

[...]And unlike the state mandate, which had no punishment for noncompliance, county health departments in Bloomington, Indianapolis and other cities can force the closure of a business for noncompliance.

In announcing last week he was rescinding the mask mandate effective, Gov. Eric Holcomb said he was leaving it up to cities and counties to keep their own mask mandates in place – in contrast to Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, not only never issued a statewide mask mandate, but two weeks ago signed an executive order canceling any fines issued to people and businesses by local governments related to local mask mandates and occupancy restrictions related to COVID-19. Holcomb has gone the other way, and in his prime-time speech March 23 announcing the end to the mask mandate, said masks will continue to be required in K-12 schools and also in state government buildings and said local governments are free to keep their mask mandates.

Has Indiana fucked up its vaccinations? Surely that's 12 % have received both doses, this isn't germany.

that's just Indianapolis
The statewide percentage is slightly above 15%