I practiced medical patent law for many years and understand your frustration about inventorship and attribution of scientific contributions. I had inventors come to physical blows and death threats over inventorship disputes. As you may know, the inventor of FM radio (Edwin Armstrong) threw himself from a skyscraper shortly after losing…
I practiced medical patent law for many years and understand your frustration about inventorship and attribution of scientific contributions. I had inventors come to physical blows and death threats over inventorship disputes. As you may know, the inventor of FM radio (Edwin Armstrong) threw himself from a skyscraper shortly after losing a patent battle to RCA. You are also right that the press (including scientific propaganda organs like Nature) are laughably ignorant about patent matters. But even brilliant scientists like you can find patent law infuriatingly incomprehensible. Your early work should probably have been cited in the all the Moderna patent applications, but some of the more recent publications relied upon during patent examination were "closer prior art" that would have been considered more pertinent by the Patent and Trademark Office. Some of Moderna's broad claims will likely fall during the Inter Pares Review (IPR), but ironically your warnings about the unsuitability of mRNAs for vaccines could be relied upon by Moderna to demonstrate that their scientists overcame a "long-standing problem in the field" by developing a "safe and effective vaccine" contrary to your warnings they would not work. I am not suggesting you stop warning the world about the undisputed dangers of these vaccines, but the patent system creates a twisted reality that even the security state would envy.
I practiced medical patent law for many years and understand your frustration about inventorship and attribution of scientific contributions. I had inventors come to physical blows and death threats over inventorship disputes. As you may know, the inventor of FM radio (Edwin Armstrong) threw himself from a skyscraper shortly after losing a patent battle to RCA. You are also right that the press (including scientific propaganda organs like Nature) are laughably ignorant about patent matters. But even brilliant scientists like you can find patent law infuriatingly incomprehensible. Your early work should probably have been cited in the all the Moderna patent applications, but some of the more recent publications relied upon during patent examination were "closer prior art" that would have been considered more pertinent by the Patent and Trademark Office. Some of Moderna's broad claims will likely fall during the Inter Pares Review (IPR), but ironically your warnings about the unsuitability of mRNAs for vaccines could be relied upon by Moderna to demonstrate that their scientists overcame a "long-standing problem in the field" by developing a "safe and effective vaccine" contrary to your warnings they would not work. I am not suggesting you stop warning the world about the undisputed dangers of these vaccines, but the patent system creates a twisted reality that even the security state would envy.
except that the addition of pseudouridine is not enabling. inconvenient fact. And both Moderna and BioNTech have licenses for that anyhow.