• squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • cøre@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I never heard of disclaiming a patent until just now. Maybe he didn’t know about or it didn’t exiat in the 1920’s

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

            • squaresinger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

                • squaresinger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They also don’t make insulin the way that he did back then. Not justifying the price hike cause the way its made now is way cheaper than it was with the old method (which was basically grinding up animal parts to extract insulin). These fucks are just profiting off of the suffering of Americans who have literally no choice but to use their drug.

        https://youtu.be/naqbi_qVoVY