It would surely depend on the patent license, no? As <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;technology&#x2F;history_of_innovation&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;the_real_reasons_jonas_salk_didn_t_patent_the_polio_vaccine.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;technology&#x2F;history_of_innovati...</a> points out:<p>&gt; No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no indication that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine.<p>Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market, while otherwise making the license available at no cost?