1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8376/anthrax-killer-wanted-patent-royalties/

Anthrax Killer Wanted Patent Royalties

August 5, 2008 by

I hope it has not escaped Stephan Kinsella’s notice that Bruce Ivins, the government scientist allegedly responsible for the 2001 anthrax killings, was apparently motivated by “intellectual property” laws to create and deploy weapons of mass destruction. (Source: LA Times)

[Ivins] stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings, the Los Angeles Times has learned. Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine, federal records show. Separately, Ivins also is listed as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines. Ivins, 62, died Tuesday in an apparent suicide in Maryland. Federal authorities had informed his lawyer that criminal charges related to the mailings would be filed. As a co-inventor of a new anthrax vaccine, Ivins was among those in line to collect patent royalties if the product had come to market, according to an executive familiar with the matter.


Kathryn August 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm

This motive is dubious. From an MSNBC interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26007186/): “But Byrne considers that motive ludicrous, because the government restricts income from inventions produced in its laboratories to no more than $150,000 per year. “[Ivins] was one of five researchers who patented that,” Byrne pointed out. “The patent is owned by the United States government. There may be some small monetary incentives, but the government owns that patent.””

jaqphule August 5, 2008 at 4:41 pm

The verdict itself is dubious. The media is awash in post mortem character assassination of this new “lone nut”. I have my doubts; I’m betting the official “investigation” will end very neatly, conveniently and soon.

magnus August 5, 2008 at 6:22 pm

His death has a certain Soviet flavor to it — a lone nut (again!), sent to a mental hospital involuntarily by the State, where the scientists promptly pronounce him mentally fit, but before he can be released, he dies in custody, despite the fact that it is supposed to be a place where the inmates don’t have access to drugs, making it all very easy to blame him for politically-sensitive crimes.

Color me skeptical.

Trooper Thompson August 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm

If you believe this official story, please contact me, as I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

hurting inside August 5, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Anyone remember Richard Jewell?

He’s the guy that saved dozens of lives at the 1996 Olympics, only to have his life go to hell by unrelenting surveillance and public news conferences by official investigators. He was ultimately exonerated, apologized to by Janet Reno, and was finally award some financial settlements.

This poor rent-a-cop saw his named cleared because he hung in there, spoke carefully and did not commit suicide.

freedom lover August 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I remember reading in Kevin Trudeau’s Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About that the anthrax was perpetrated by financially-motivated individuals in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. This fellow claims to have been an “insider” in some kind of global conspiracy who is now “blowing the whistle”. I was sure he was a crackpot, but now I’m having second thoughts.

Andras August 6, 2008 at 12:10 am

Isn’t “government scientist” a true oxymoron?

Jonathan Bostwick August 6, 2008 at 1:11 am

Even at first glance this explanation sounds too politically correct to be true.(A money seeking lone gun man)

But wait until Justin Raimondo tears into it.

Billy Beck August 6, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Oh, please, already. This is like trying to tag atheism with the atrocities of communism.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Person August 6, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Now, I’m here to throw a wet blanket on this parade. Y’all ready? Here goes.

“Hey, I bet Ivins asserted a lot of physical property rights too!”

How would you rate that wisecrack on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being completely uncreative and 10 being very witty.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: