I like to hear alternative views, providing they are expressed logically and demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of the subject matter; and an open mind. No one has a mortgage on good ideas.
But ill-informed garbage serves no purpose other than to alarm innocent shareholders and perhaps prompt then to sell their shares. As an illustration, I give you the patent issues raised by harvett.
This poster either has no idea how the patent system works; or is being deliberately mischevious. All biotech investors should know that a Provisional Application is lodged as soon as practicable in order to protect the Priority Date for the invention; but that the inventor has up to 12 months to finalise the application before it is made public and becomes subject to strict examination, to determine whether it is truly novel and has been 'reduced to practice'.
Once the application has been finalised it cannot be changed, so it is impoartant that the final application provides experimental proof that support all claims. If you make an important discovery mid-way through this 12-month period which requires further work, or you wish to expand the scope of the patent application and need time to conduct suitable experiments, it might make sense to abandon the original application and submit a new application, thus restarting the 12-month clock.
The date you see in AusPat is the original filing date. As far as I can tell, the second application lodged by GK has not even reached the Examination phase. One has to wonder at he bonefides of a poster who implies that there is a problem just because a patent has not been granted, when the reality is that the application has yet to be assessed by the patent experts.
Be careful who you trust.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
