Hacker News Reader

Not when it's a monopoly. That means the company gets to exploit the results of the research for their own profit, without any competition to keep prices reasonable. Non-exclusive deals are fine. Exclusive ones are not.

View on HN

Look, I understand the frustration but they're not going to set this price. This thing is way bigger than this company and even the entire pharmaceutical industry. This is a global crisis.

Many governments have proven that they will put the public's need over these companies need. They've broken patents and pressured companies before and they will obviously do it again.

There are more governments in the world than the American one.

For now speed is of the essence and this it's wonderful news they've set another step.

I'm not a public policy, legal, or economics expert, but I certainly favor treating this as a one-off. If a legal monopoly is the most expedient way to get us back to normal, so be it, and if fears of price gouging are a concern let congress or the executive or whomever cap the price. Once things get back to normal we can litigate the monopoly issue.

That’s a fair point. I guess my underlying assumption would be the government funding the research would retain rights to the research as well. Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com