worktoplay, You have raised some interesting points and ask some pertinent questions. Here are a couple more that occur to me.
-Given the history of Shriver's arrival and the subsequent and very immediate patent application bearing both names, is it fair to assume that the new 'advantage' in developing pharmacological classifiers, wass a fairly sudden departure from the previously developed technology that bore the previously announced development projects Statinome and Ovanome?
-Since the competetive advantage had a limited timespan (until the USPTO published the application) can we assume that that advantage has been exploited vigorously and the scientific team has developed new classifiers in the interim?
-As the advantage post dates the Statinome and Ovanome classifiers and the competetive advantage was necessarily short lived, does this explain the appaerent 'back burner' status of these previously highly touted products? The limited resources of the compaqny would necessarily have to be devoted to developing products based on the short lived competetive advantage.
-Now that the application has been published and the 'headstart' has played out, can we expect to hear about all the new classifiers that have been developed during the protected timeframe?
-If there have been no new products developed in the interim due to monetary or resource limitations, what advantage still exists now that the 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak?
regards,
frog
