InvestorsHub Logo

dont-snow-me

12/21/15 3:00 PM

#45784 RE: Mikesc #45783

Makes sense.

maskone

12/21/15 3:05 PM

#45785 RE: Mikesc #45783

In otherwords they went for the gusto. No harm no foul. Its their feduciary duty to shareholders.

sokol

12/21/15 3:21 PM

#45787 RE: Mikesc #45783

You really should think in terms of "monopoly". One of the few ways to have a legal monopoly is to have a patent or patents on the product. Whatever is covered by valid and enforceable patents creates exclusive rights (monopolies) to sell those products for the duration of the patent(s). Otherwise, monopolies are illegal - in violation of the antitrust laws. The patent monopoly is what creates the value of the products. Whatever is not covered by valid and enforceable patents may be copied and sold by anyone. For example, when a brand name drug goes off patent and is copied by multiple generic companies, the price of the molecule covered by the brand name drug 's patent immediately plummets around 80% or more. Therefore, Anavex seeks multiple patents that are as broad as possible. That is what we shareholders desire, right? As many patents as is possible and that are as broad as possible.

JB3729

12/21/15 5:46 PM

#45807 RE: Mikesc #45783

Thanks for sharing this -

From IR on Patent question.

As a matter of strategy, many applicants “over claim” and then, during the course of prosecution, one arrives at the broadest allowable claim. To start with an allowable claim suggests that the applicant received less scope in the patent than may have been possible.

Ragnaroc

12/21/15 9:56 PM

#45824 RE: Mikesc #45783

Like when getting arrested ha ha you get charged with as much as they think they can charge you with so that something will stick!!!