WHO asks South African startup to replicate Moderna's mRNA vaccine
The fact that this is <i>necessary</i>, should invalidate any patent protection that Moderna (and Pfizer) have on the vaccine. Patents are supposed to work as a quid quo pro, you disclose the invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly. If it takes significant work to reverse engineer the invention, that quid quo pro hasn't been met, the patent should be considered invalid.<p>If Moderna and Pfizer want to protect the vaccine via trade secrets, from an intellectual property that's fine, but they shouldn't have any government defence against reverse engineering.<p>(Note: Talking in moral terms here, there is some legal support for the argument, at least in Canada (not sure about the US), but I wouldn't suggest that I could predict which way the case would go without a lot more information. For an example case along these lines from Canada, see: <a href="https://www.pharmainbrief.com/2017/08/fca-upholds-gilead-victory-invalidating-idenix-patent-relating-to-anti-hcv-compounds/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pharmainbrief.com/2017/08/fca-upholds-gilead-vic...</a>)