Spid – how EGR chooses to ‘market’ itself has no bearing on the legalities or outcome.
However, you’ve inadvertently highlighted the objection in a nutshell.
ANZAPLAN and RNU have been claiming that EGR’s patent application is ‘overly broad’. If you don't see that in your post above then let me try to put it another way:
EGR has not disclosed which acid or process it uses to constitute it to make the claim that it is HF free. Yet, it makes the claim that they are excluding the use of HF.
In other words, the patent in its present form could be giving EGR exclusive control over every other possible acid or process but HF. Therefore, how does anyone in the industry ever know whether or not they are in breach of it?
This is simply anti-commerce.Patents are designed to protect one's time and energy made to invent something that they believe to be new, novel and useful. However, they are not there to disenfranchise an entire industry from the use of all other possible means. That would stifle improvements and developments necessary for a healthy competitive environment to exist.
It appears to me that EGR may just need to spell things out a bit more, so that everyone can be sure where they stand. That way, EGR win and still get to keep their patent.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)