> but the developing company declined to go to market, and instead pivoted to selling once-daily probiotic mouthwash.
sounds like they preferred to sell a recurring subscription vs a one-time sale
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patie...
1) milk a dumb problem you've already solved, making very moderate profit, or
2) solve it and move onto more interesting problems, continuing to make money
If you create a startup that after a decade creates an affordable and effective gene theraphy for type II diabetes, and most of people recover, will your startup survive curing only new cases of it? Will it be able to tackle another disease before your coffers dry up?
The question can be viewed as greedy companies wanting to milk diseases forever, or as a sustainability issue. Being able to cure chronic diseases affordably will probably become a new socioeconomic challenge.
This shit should just be taken by the state for the benefit of everyone, because really it's insane not to.
Like usual, the problem isn't whose name is on the box. The problem is the subscription-based business model, which can easily turn into pure rent seeking.
Theres no real reason to reward squatting on world changing tech, is there?
Really....
The government is protecting their discovery via patent law, why is it not allowed to remove this protection.
Patents and copyright are very recent inventions. Not everyone is motivated by profit. People were inventing things before capitalism consumed the world.
Plenty of ways to make a profit.
My bet is that it was never tested and the claim is entirely a prediction.
