You’re mixing buzzwords with half-understood concepts and calling it “business insight.”
1. “There is only one gel” — false.
What matters isn’t a gel, it’s composition, preparation, performance, and control. Patents don’t protect “a gel in theory,” they protect how it’s made, how it behaves, and how it’s used. That’s exactly what the newer claims cover.
2. “Weak patents” is a lazy label, not an analysis. A patent is either granted because it meets novelty and non-obviousness, or it isn’t. The USPTO doesn’t issue patents to “string shareholders along.” If these claims were obvious tweaks, they’d have been rejected.
3. “Anyone can recreate and tweak it” — in theory. In practice, if it were that easy, someone would already be doing it. Public domain ideas don’t magically turn into regulated, reproducible, clinically deployable medical devices without years of work. That’s the part armchair critics always skip.
4. Prior art doesn’t invalidate improvement — it’s the foundation of all innovation. Every serious patent cites prior art. That’s not a red flag — that’s how the system works. Claiming otherwise just broadcasts unfamiliarity with how IP actually functions.
5. “OTC companies love patents” because patents matter. Regulators, partners, acquirers, and manufacturers care about defensible IP. Dismissing patents as “strings and carrots” is what people do when they can’t engage with the substance.
If the science were as “junk” as you keep repeating, competitors wouldn’t need to theorize about offsets — they’d already be selling them.
Repeating slogans doesn’t make them true. It just makes them louder.
Same team as SC8. Same swings and same misses.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
