InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 34
Posts 2680
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/28/2013

Re: DebtFreeTrading post# 7010

Saturday, 07/18/2015 10:35:24 AM

Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:35:24 AM

Post# of 481716
It seems that an additional 1% for Anavex Plus on top of 6% for the component Anavex 2-73 is very generous, yet reasonable. A good compromise. Is it possible this issue is totally resolved with that number, and that Vamvakides is no longer contesting the issue?

Vamvakides was made chief science officer as part of the original patent(s) purchase, and provided a salary, albeit a small salary. He's not chief science officer any more is he? I wonder if the relationship with the company degenerated, and he was booted. I wonder if that is the source for the negative energy driving his efforts, if those efforts have persisted.

7% is a big percentage given the drug potential and the amount of time and money required to realize that potential. But maybe it is not so big compared to the amount of stock given senior officers... maybe that is what pained Vamvakides.

My dates for the time it took the USPO to process the -371 patent were again errored. I am not going to write the new dates for fear of screwing that up again. But it apparently took a very long time to process that patent. Maybe they lacked key docs in that case also along the way. Still it is true that the time that has expired since the -273 patent power of attorney etc docs got cleared up is not long enough to be any indication of a problem in getting the -273 patent. I have recently read that 12 to 18 months is typical for patents. Not sure if that applies to pharma category patents.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AVXL News