If you have more info than I do on any issues I bring up, feel free to correct me. I am simply trying to take peak into our future.
That being said, I don’t think any Tissue Welding Equipment will ever be sold outside the U.S. The U.S. allows patents on Medical Processes but most countries including Canada and Western Europe do not. Therefore, to earn royalties, the equipment will be leased IMHO. Here is why I believe this:
This article from the World Medical Association talks about Patents for Medical Processes. This is exclusive to the U.S. CTUM’s tissue welding application and equipment could both be a billable items.
http://www.wma.net/e/policy/m30.htm
Article on an Inventing Physician that has Patented and enforced a Medical Procedure. There is no device involved and he is still earning revenue. One would imagine having a device only strengthens the revenue process.
http://cache.technologyreview.com/articles/98/03/shulman0398.asp?p=1
An article that details an eye operating procedure that parallels CTUM in many aspects. No scaring, and probably the lease of the Doctor, equipment and procedure.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/patent_4-23.html
Article detailing how the U.S. is mostly alone in allowing Patents for Medical Process’s. Europe, Canada and 80 countries disallow the Patent process and therefore royalties. Sounds to me like the equipment will get very expensive to LEASE in those countries.
Patent Opponents
Historically, the medical profession has considered patents on medical inventions as contrary to the philanthropic nature of the physician's practice. Almost 80 foreign countries, including Canada, Britain, and most countries in Europe, currently ban medical procedure patents.
The patent system in the United States has its origins in the U.S. Constitution. The constitutionally mandated goal is to promote "the progress of science and the useful arts." Congress implemented this directive by granting a 17-year monopoly to inventors who disclose their discoveries. Although it grants a legal monopoly exempt from antitrust constraints, the patent system serves the public interest by creating economic incentives for the development and disclosure of new technology and for investment and innovation. Many new techniques would not exist without the promise of patent protection. The social and economic benefits of granting a legal monopoly, therefore, may well outweigh the costs. Alternatively, many procedures would have been developed even if a patent were not available, and the monopoly price may not be justifiable.
The American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates voted in 1994 to oppose the practice of medical and surgical procedure patents as unethical. The patent system, to the extent "it keeps new procedures secret for long periods of time and limits free access to information that improves patient care," according to Nancy Dickey, M.D., on behalf of the AMA Board of Trustees, conflicts with the principles of the Hippocratic Oath, which calls upon physicians to share their expertise freely and to teach their colleagues for the benefit of patients. The House of Delegates viewed the method patent trend as contrary to the medical tradition of an open exchange of information without the expectation of financial reward and expressed concern that it might have a chilling effect on medical practice and education.
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Sep/19/133572.html
AIMHO
Airdale
This post is an opinion and should not be considered reason to buy or sell any security, or to besmirch, belittle or berate any person, religion, cult, creed, race, sex, political party, company or company representative of any age or appearance.
