|
Post by babaoriley on May 25, 2017 0:35:38 GMT -5
It's true, baba, that patents don't necessarily add value, until they become marketable. I don't recall saying anything about $value of patents or their impact on share price. But I for one like to be kept informed and apprised of patents because a company that doesn't invest in the future doesn't have one, IMHO. Shareholders who aren't interested in the R&D department can simply flip to the next thread without belittling or poking fun at us who are interested, right? :-) Here's the thing, so many investors will cite some sort of value for the patent regime. I appears they think that even if the company's business model fails, the patents have all this value. It's a false sense of security.
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on May 25, 2017 0:56:09 GMT -5
It's true, baba, that patents don't necessarily add value, until they become marketable. I don't recall saying anything about $value of patents or their impact on share price. But I for one like to be kept informed and apprised of patents because a company that doesn't invest in the future doesn't have one, IMHO. Shareholders who aren't interested in the R&D department can simply flip to the next thread without belittling or poking fun at us who are interested, right? :-) Here's the thing, so many investors will cite some sort of value for the patent regime. I appears they think that even if the company's business model fails, the patents have all this value. It's a false sense of security. Hey baba ... you better let your grand niece post for you also because you haven't got a clue. Mannkind isn't a one trick pony that is all about Afrezza. The patents are for other future products ... you know, like Technosphere. This is just the beginning of the never ending story.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on May 25, 2017 11:53:30 GMT -5
Perhaps you're correct, mytakeonit, but that's not my takeonit!
|
|
|
Post by roseylv on May 25, 2017 12:56:11 GMT -5
the monetization of ancillary patents (such as the one posted) are rarely capitalized on. Now, 10 years down the road, if for some reason these "ancillary" patents find there way into the hands of a patent trolls, perhaps there is a small chance they could capitalize. And that is a BIG if, if someone infringes on that patent. These so called patent trolls usually hang out in the tech world, not the biotech space. It's much easier to make a small minute scientific change / workaround then to change a significant piece of hardware w/ a patent or patented VPN protocol used in mobile devices around the world.
until then SCRIPTS or die!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on May 25, 2017 13:56:35 GMT -5
What about the publication 20170143804 published 5/25/2017.
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 25, 2017 14:16:58 GMT -5
Sorry to disagree, mn, but patents are overrated. They are a MUST, of course, and that's a given - I mean any biotech or tech patents as much as possible. That is not necessarily true either. Patents on drug molecules (composition of matter patents), but a lot of biotech value is in process. The good news is that if a process is patented it is theoretically protected, but the reality is that it is very difficult to identify and prosecute those who may be infringing on such patents. Once a patent has been granted, the secret is openly published for all to see. Worse yet, in many cases it is hospitals and universities that are doing the infringing and suing your customer or one of their friends will not win you any points in the market. On the other hand, if you leave the process unpatented and treat it as a trade secret it never gets disclosed to the broader world and you save a bundle on legal fees and patent annuities. There are many cases where not patenting biotech innovations is the smarter move.
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on May 26, 2017 7:23:30 GMT -5
Patents = Potential
|
|