Meanwhile, 10 euros per vial here in Europe. At least his original plan for widespread and easy availability has partially succeeded.
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)
Science Memes
17736 readers
1823 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In civilized countries at least.
In brazil 36 reais (about 6 euro). The US is a joke. (And im 99% sure you can also get it for free if you use the public health network)
I have mental health disabilities in the USA and my meds are at zero cost because I literally have had absolute zero income for the past 5 years.
You wouldn't believe how much those mood stabilizer/antidepressant cocktails stack up proportionally when I was able to scrape by on $15 an hour.
The system set me up to fail with how shitty it is, if healthcare wasn't crap I could be contributing to society without crippling myself.
Canadians: invented drug and patent it freely
Americans: Finds way to kill the most people possible while making the most amount of money
To be fair, the killing isn't the point; they're the product. Its just that profit is God, so killing in its name is justified.
Killing poors for the joy of it? That's just an evil bonus.
I’m not diabetic and the situation with insulin fills me with a white hot rage.
California is contracting its own insulin supply and it'll be available for $11 a pen starting Jan 1, 2026. I know not every state can or are willing to do this but just throwing out some examples and hopefully optimism to somehow fight the American decline from within it. We're in a unique position as our state economy is larger than most countries but I am hopeful we will throw our weight around to counter the bs. https://www.chhs.ca.gov/blog/2025/10/17/governor-newsom-announces-affordable-calrx-insulin-11-a-pen-will-soon-be-available-for-purchase/
contracting is an interesting choice of word since it could mean decreasing
That's called a homophone.
If he wanted it to be freely available, why did he even sell the patent ? Just disclaim at the patent office. Selling is just asking the new holder to start enforcing.
They sold the patent to the University of Toronto, so they didn't exactly sell it to a for-profit patent troll.
But also, that was in 1923, so the patent has long since expired.
I mean, that's better than selling to a private person, still feels weird, since disclaiming a patent is absolutely possible, and has a 100% chance of leading to the desired outcome, vs whatever small chance there may be that the University starts taking profits on it. Or even just sees themselves forced to sell the patent, because of potential financial issues.
Yeah, the risk is small, but eliminating it in it's entirety would've been easily possible, so it just feels a bit weird he didn't do it.
Remember, the 1920s is long ago. Giving the patent to the equivalent of a non-profit organisation was probably better than disclaiming it, since it's easier to have one large, well-known entity that will fight off people trying to re-patent it than to disclaim it and hope that no patent clerk ever lets a fraudulent re-patent go through.
In 1920 you couldn't just google for prior art when fighting a fraudulent patent.
Ok, that is a fair point I hadn't previosuly considered. Though disclaiming a patent doesn't loose you all legal recourse.
If someone else tries to repatent it, even if it gets approved, you can still file a challenge against the new patent with the PTO. You (or anyone else, really) would also have a virtually guaranteed court win, even if someone got the patent through and tried to enforce it. All you'd have to prove in court is that prior art of the invention exists, therefore the patent is invalid and unenforceable, granted or not, so it's unlikely someone would even bother trying to enforce such a patent. A previous, diclaimed patent, of literally the identical technology being on record is pretty iron clad and unavoidable evidence that the patent isn't original.
Nowadays you just google for other patents and done. But back then, I guess that searching for prior art was quite a lot more difficult. Gifting the patent to an university so that they defend open access to the patent sounds like a more reliable plan.
I mean, even nowadays patents are greenlit my patent offices even though there's clear prior art (Nintendo's recent patent for catching monsters in a ball in a game comes to mind, which Nintendo would have to have patented before publishing their first game with that mechanic around 30 years ago), and even today it's really difficult and expensive to get such a clear nonsense patent invalidated.
So difficult that e.g. Palworld opted to change the mechanic instead of fighting the patent.
So I do understand why someone would instead gift the patent to an university under the condition that they keep access to it open, especially 100 years ago.
That logic applies identically to a valid patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ""new"" inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed or a valid patent, so I don't think that's a valid reason to not disclaim it.
Anyone who wants to repatent the process and harass people using it, would have an equally hard/easy time doing so, if the patent is disclaimed or valid.
The only real legal distinction between a disclaimed and valid patent is that the orignal patent holder can't enforce the disclaimed one. And since that was the intended goal here, disclaimment feels like the obvious best choice.
That logic applies identically to a valid patent.
The difference is that in the case of transferring the patent to the university, there's a legal department at the ready to defend the patent. The same is not the case for a disclaimed patent.
Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don't need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn't strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.
Of course, but an university owning a patent gives them the responsibility to defend it, and also incentivizes them to do so.
No it doesn't. They're explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.
Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.
I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.
I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.
You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.
Just a weird, coincidence I'm sure.
I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.
While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren't supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn't "having new arguments". It's "running out of arguments but not admitting to it". And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there's no point bringing new arguments apart from "a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row".
You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn't mention the arguments you made and just called it a "contemporary source". I can't take you seriously anymore, you're arguing on the level of a C- high school student.
You've also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I've said. Every single time I've pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you're right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn't even mention the word "disclaim" or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.
Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they're just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don't want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That's not a legal arguement, that's an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can't be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.
You haven't provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.
If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.
Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that's what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it's on Wikipedia?
I've directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You're literally just making shit up now. You're clearly arguing in bad faith, and I'm not going to engage with you anymore. You've notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would've been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is "they didn't chose it, and they couldn't possibly have been wrong". According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must've been the right decision.
Come back when you've learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.
You haven't provided a single source that backs up your claim. I will continue to talk with you once you did.
Capitalism is economic terrorism.