Hi
@P3COrion,
I take your point on repeating myself, but I’m still left with a few unresolved IP questions (i.e. not everything has been put to bed imo - but those things that are unresolved in my mind aren’t negative but potentially very positive).
On the regurgitating of the same points - The times I have brought up posts about IP have been mostly after the publications of the Ann Reports. Also, what happens typically (generalising) is:
1. I find something new in the Ann report or my patent research and post it.
2. Someone who labels me as always being negative, retaliates with ancillary, unrelated falsifiable statements (imo) that usually miss the point of my post.
3. I get into a debate with the poster where I am repeating myself on earlier points that have already been made to unfortunately those reading who don’t need a rehash.
Also there are readers who post appreciation for the recent postings and any ensuing debate, and there are those like yourself who think it’s all a distraction and a repetitive yawn I presume. There is a multitude of takes.
Also one of the weaknesses (and strengths) of this forum is that everybody can post uncensored, without prior editing or a tap on the shoulder to say it’s not worth it (assuming it’s not subsequently moderated). That’s a recipe for hubris to affect judgement on whether it’s worth posting, which I’m no doubt guilty of at times.
Apologies for the following repeat of earlier points made which arguably proves your point and/or the one I just made, but I feel a need to defend that each initial post on patents was catalysed by finding or deducing something new.
2021 Ann Report - Noticed in the notes after the IP list the reference to the Ionis world-wide licence ending in 2023, which Meph put to bed at the time by interpreting the 2023 expiry as possibly referring to the US patent 7015315 in the sentence. I since dispute that as US7015315 was filed in 1995 and expired in 2015, so not sure if this was an error being included after 2015.
2022 Ann Report - noticed the added information to the 2023 licenced Ionis patent expiry clause that they were going to let listed Ionis patents (ATL1103) expiring in 2024 and 2025 lapse due to not paying renewal fees. Since this only saved the company less than $10,000 (in my estimate assuming they were the payer), thought it was interesting that it coincided with the 2023 expiry of other Ionis patents not listed (and a possible end to licence). Nothing put to bed in this instance.
2023 Ann Report - complete removal of all references to Ionis licenced patents in the section on Intellectual Property in the introductory blurb, patents list, and notes afterwards. There was still the standard two paragraphs outside the IP section in the Ann Report intro where they referenced they have an Ionis licence but technically there was a licence at June 30 (and still might be going forward - we’ll see).
This was coupled with my find recently from the 2001 IPO prospectus where it states that the Ionis Agreement ends when licenced IP expires.
The latest postings have brought out a response from GT, which I have to thank itsa for. I’d like an hour of one-on-one with George but that’s not going to happen in the near future. Although reinforcing 90% what I had been saying and not referencing the Ionis licence continuation or possible termination, it did add some interesting revelations (not entirely clear to me) regarding possible manufacture and composition trade secrets, that would require third parties with future Methods of Use/Treatment IP to licence to ANP (“thereby blocking others”?). All positive in any case.
Anyway in summary, I have either proved your point (that I rehash the same points over and over) or my point, that the rehashes are only a symptom of posting in defence. Or both.
Appreciate your posts in any case PC3O.
(20min delay)
