ann out re immunoxel, page-10

If you were right, why would Immune Network even bother agreeing, and all the pulished research on immunoxcel, would disagree with you, with strong results indicating it works extremely well. It is still in trials in Africa and Russia through Ecomed, Immunenetwork as we speak.

Research suggests that V5 is a dirative/enhancement of Immunoxel for which Ecomed, Immune Network had the right to develop and distribute in Russia and Africa and possibly some other countries, and STI had the rights to develop and market in Australia, USA, UK and a some other countries including some in Europe if memory serves ?.

However, dependant on the actual terms of any patent or development and marketing right, Immunoxel in it's V5 form, would therfore more likely appear to obscure the fine line which exists as to what actual product these rights refer to, and therfore likely was to be used to research and market into countries STI had the rights for.

Hence, I suggest it is far more likley that both parties agreed to partnerships in quite possibly different immunoxcel development trials, but with the end effect of both having access to a percentage of the eventual marketed profits, which with further good result could be huge, because :

The alternative may have been a very slow development, further trialling and marketing of ? some (what) form of immunoxcel and thereby present circumstances which might invoke long, costly court battles over products, product definition, who has right's to what etc., which neither company could afford.

At least this way prouduct development is openned up to ? multiple forms of product, ? multiple further trialling of different forms, and regardless both parties profit from it which speeds up development of the final product for marketing, a long and costly process in itself.

And if memory served STI was going to release it through the US on line marketing of bio-botanicals about a year ago but the US changed the legal requirements to get approval for bio-botanicals which canned it and other products back then due to long time frames, cost, trialling of products running into years. Was commented on back then, that it could even take up to 4 years to achieve the same thing with Australia.

Again a good move especially if it brings even a joint product to market quicker ?